Judgment · High Court · 2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Shivam Malik, Advocate for the petitioners ***** Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. AG, Haryana ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

#1. Learned counsel for the petitioners restricts their prayer only with regard to the recovery of family pension, which was granted to them without there being any misrepresentation or concealment on their part and makes a reference to the judgment of Jagesh Devi vs. State of Haryana and Others, CWP-16832-2018, decided on 04.07.2019 that squarely covers these cases, while stating that some amount of Rs.9508/- was recovered from April, 2008 to July, 2008, even though there was an interim order passed by the Division Bench on 01.05.2008 and 30.05.2008. Relevant paras whereof read thus: “ The question of law which arises for determination in this case is as to whether, the petitioner, who has been paid excess amount by the respondents themselves, can the same be recovered from the petitioner upon noticing the mistake? It is admitted by the respondents that there is no misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner and it was the duty of the respondents to stop the monthly financial assistance and give family pension to the petitioner when the deceased employee would have attained the age of superannuation in case he would have continued in service. Once, the excess amount was paid mistakenly by the respondents themselves without there being any input from the petitioner, no recovery could have been ordered from the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner was working on a Class III post as a T-mate. Petitioner is an illiterate lady who did not know that w.e.f. January, 2015, she was only entitled for CWP-7184-2008 (O&M) & CWP-10258-2008 (O&M) -2- family pension. Therefore, it cannot be said that despite knowledge, the petitioner continued to get higher emoluments. Once, the petitioner did not had the knowledge about the excess amount being paid, nothing can be attributed to her of continuously getting the higher emoluments for which she was not entitled for and therefore, no motive can be attributed to her in the present case. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, has issued guidelines as to under what circumstances, the recoveries can be effected. After detailed consideration of law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that no recoveries can be ordered from the employees belonging to Class III and IV and further, no recoveries can be ordered from the employees, who have retired or who are about to retire within a period of one year. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner was working on a Class III post and the emoluments which have been paid to the petitioner, were in respect of the service which the late husband of the petitioner had rendered on a Class III post. The emoluments which were being paid to the petitioner, were under the 2006 Rules, which have been framed by the respondents for removing the financial difficulties of the dependents of the deceased Government employees. The relevant paragraph of the said judgement is as under:- “ It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employees, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable CWP-7184-2008 (O&M) & CWP-10258-2008 (O&M) -3- balance of the employer's right to recover.” The case of the petitioner will be covered under clause (i) and (v) of the said judgment. In the present case, the recovery would be harsh and arbitrary as petitioner was not in any way responsible for the receipt of the said excess amount and petitioner being a widow of a Government servant who was working on a Class III post and totally illiterate, if made to refund the amount as being asked by the respondents, will suffer prejudice and the same will be harsh as well. In view of the above, order dated 15.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) whereby recovery of an amount of Rs.5,14,312/- from the petitioner is ordered, is set aside. However, petitioner will only be entitled for the pension as fixed by the respondents w.e.f. February, 2015 onwards as being determined by the respondents. The writ petition is allowed in above terms.”

#2. Learned State counsel despite best efforts has been unable to controvert regards the factual position and draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any contrary thereto.

#3. In wake of the above, the present petitions are disposed of in terms of Jagesh Devi (supra). Needless to mention that the amount that had been recovered by refunded to the petitioners within a period of 4 months.

#4. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

14.07.2026 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No