The High Court
Case Details
CWP-25460 460-2023 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA CWP-25 Date of D 25460-2023 ate of Decision: November 04, 2025 269 Purn Chand and and another Dakshin Hary Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and oth nd others SUS VERSUS .....Petitioner ioners ...Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARP HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for ate for the petitioners. Ms. Anjali, Advocate for Mr.Harm or the .Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate for the respondents. **** HARPREET EET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has be 6/227 has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Consti Constitution of India with a prayer for writ er for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in th in the nature of certiorari for quashi of the quashing the impugned inaction of the respondents dents vide which they have recovere retiral covered the amount from the retiral benefits of th s of the petitioners which is contrary t of law trary to the settled proposition of law and further f rther for issuance of a writ in the nat ng the he nature of mandamus directing the respondents dents to refund the recovered amoun they amount to the petitioners which they have illegally llegally recovered from the retiral be along iral benefits of the petitioners along with interest terest @ 18% per annum. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25460 460-2023 2 2.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petition at the etitioners inter alia contends that the present writ t writ petition was ordered to be listed 022 e listed along with CWP-14748-2022 titled as Ran Randhir Singh and anr. Vs Dakshi gam kshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and ot d others, being an identical issue of on issue, which was disposed of on 31.01.2024 b 024 but the same could not be liste tioned e listed along with above mentioned CWP. Learn Learned counsel further submits tha is its that the case of the petitioners is squarely cove ly covered by Randhir Singh’s case (supra). 3. Per contra learned counsel for t ubmit el for the respondents failed to submit any plausible usible explanation as to how the case ntical e case of the petitioner is not identical to Randhir S hir Singh’s case (supra). 4. The relevant extract of order dat WP- der dated 31.01.2024 passed in CWP 14748-2022 2022, reads as under:- “6. The petitioners while the nted they were in service were granted increments on their promotion a f 10 ion as Lineman on completion of 10 years of regular/satisfactory se one ry services. However, later on one letter was issued by the Additi ana dditional Chief Secretary, Haryana vide letter dated 24.02.2016 (A g to 6 (Annexure R-1) and according to the respondents, the petitione the tioners were not entitled to the increments. However, the a ever e aforesaid amount was never recovered or sought to be recov ring ecovered from the petitioners during the period of their service and it ent, nd it was only after their retirement, the aforesaid amount was sou the sought to be recovered from the Gratuity of the petitioners. Th be . The petitioners are stated to be Class-D employees. The Hon’ afiq Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (Supra) has laid d the aid down law in this regard and the relevant portion of the judgment ment is reproduced as under:- “18. It is not possible s of ible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would go e of ld govern employees on the issue of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25460 460-2023 3 recovery, where payments e by ents have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess o ss of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisio , we cisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready referenc few rence, summarise the following few situations, wherein recov ould ecoveries by the employers, would w: be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employ and ployees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Grou roup 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired who tired employees, or employees who are due to retire withi r of ithin one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from emplo ent mployees, when the excess payment has been made for a perio fore period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is is is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases wh fully s where an employee has wrongfully been required to dischar and charge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingl have dingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to ost. ed to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, w the e, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery yee, very if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or an or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outw e of outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to rec o recover.” 7. As per Clause (i) & (ii), a yee, ii), after retirement of the employee, who falls in the Category of be y of C & D, no amount can be recovered from the retiral bene is of benefits. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prayer of the ered the petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of t t in of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (Supra) an ered ) and no amount can be recovered after their retirement especiall ll in cially when the petitioners fall in Category ‘D’. So far as the grou ts in ground taken by the respondents in PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25460 460-2023 4 their reply that the petitioners h at if ers had given an undertaking that if any excess payment is credited will ited in their account, then they will refund the same to the respond l of ondents is concerned, a perusal of the undertaking which has been and been so filed in the Court today and marked as ‘X’ as aforesaid, an aid, it would show that such an undertaking has been given af time n after the retirement at the time when the petitioners were to be their to be given their pension and their DCRG. The aforesaid undertak .2 is rtaking given by petitioner No.2 is reproduced as under:- “Undertaking for refund paid efund of pension & DCRG paid excessively to which I may may be actually entitle. 1) Undertaking to refu n & refund any amount of pension & DCRG paid to me in exc y be excess of that to which I may be actually entitle. 2) I here by declare th nor e that I have neither applied nor received any pension ath- sion or gratuity and death cumretirement gratuity of ity in respect of any portion of service including in this hich this application in respect of which pension or gratuity claimed he any herein nor shall I submit any application hereafter wit e to without quoting any reference to this application and other ther which may be passed. 3) In case any outstan er tstanding recovery is found after releasing of pension I her over I hereby give my consent to recover the same from my subsequ sequent payment of monthly pension. Sd/- Sd/ cant RTI or singature of Applicant FT” Full Name Kailash Chander, AFT” Ful 8. A bare perusal of the sam only same would show that it was only after retirement that such un the h undertaking was given by the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25460 460-2023 5 petitioners. The law which has ’ble has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court o hers rt of Punjab & Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh (supra), was n to was that when a benefit is given to the employee and an undertakin oyee taking is furnished by the employee that he will refund the amount in sive nt in case it is found to be excessive or not admissible then after th be er the retirement the same can be refunded on the basis of under the ndertaking. However, so far as the present undertaking as filed b the ed by the learned counsel for the respondents in Court today and , the and marked ‘X’ is concerned, the same was not given at the time was time of grant of benefit and it was given after the retirement and t view nd this Court is rather of the view that such kind of undertaking is a king taken from an employee is a coercive method because such the such kind of undertaking after the retirement at the time of disbur nary isbursal of pension and pensionary benefits, is non est in the eyes rced yes of law and cannot be enforced especially being unconscionab said ionable. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supr gdev Supreme Court passed in Jagdev Singh’s case (supra), is disting case stinguishable from the present case and is not applicable to the pres and, present case and on the other hand, the prayer of the petitioners is ent s is rather covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ” urt in Rafiq Masih’s case (Supra).” lied) (Emphasis supplied) 5. I have heard the learned counse ell as counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents s and gone through the case able case file carefully with their able assistance. I It transpires that the present writ p listed t writ petition was ordered to be listed along with C with CWP-14748-2022 on 31.01.202 listed 1.2024 but the same was not listed inadvertently rtently. Further, the case of the petitio by the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment pas nt passed by this Court in Randhir S ing an hir Singh’s case (supra), being an identical issu al issue. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-25460 460-2023 6 6. In view of the above, without c rits of thout commenting upon the merits of the case, the , the present petition is disposed of gh’s sed of in terms of Randhir Singh’s case (supra) pra) with a direction to the respo ity to respondents/competent authority to refund the re the recovered amount to the petitio three petitioners within a period of three months along along with interest @ 6% per annu ipt of r annum from the date of receipt of certified copy d copy of this order till its actual realiz l realization. 7. Pending application(s), if any, sh
Decision
any, shall also stand disposed of. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE November P.C 04, 2025 Whether speaking/r Whether Reportable king/reasoned. : Yes/No Yes/No ortable. : PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document