Sajjan Kuma Kumar Goyal State of Hary f Haryana and others SUS v. itioner
Case Details
1 CWP-32 32661-2024 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 273 CWP-32661 Date of Dec 32661-2024 of Decision: November 04, 2025 Sajjan Kuma Kumar Goyal State of Hary f Haryana and others SUS VERSUS itioner .....Petitioner ...Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for for the petitioner. vocate with Mr. Mayank Garg and g and Mr. Arun Singla, AAG, Haryana aryana. te for Ms. Navya Jindal, Advocate for te for respondent No.3. Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for r **** HARPREET REET 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 e writ er for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in th r in the nature of certiorari for quas dated r quashing the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 ( 022 (Annexure P-4) which upheld unt of pheld the recovery of an amount of ₹6,63,688/- - from the petitioner's pension wi ay the ion with further directions to pay the recovered am red amount to the petitioner with intere interest @ 12% p.a. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-32 32661-2024 FACTUAL B UAL BACKGROUND 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that he re that the petitioner retired from the post of Execu Executive Officer from the Municipa ndent nicipal Council, Kaithal (Respondent No. 3) on ) on attaining the age of superann Upon perannuation on 29.02.2016. Upon retirement, th ent, the petitioner was issued a Pens ) No. a Pension Payment Order (PPO) No. 6386 by the y the Director, Urban Local Bodies o. 2) odies, Haryana (Respondent No. 2) vide letter d etter dated 09.08.2016, sanctioning from ning his pension with effect from 01.03.2016. 016. A copy of the PPO was sent Bank, sent to the Punjab National Bank, Kaithal (Resp l (Respondent No. 4), where the petitio petitioner held his pension account. 3. In the year 2019, the respond own espondent authorities, on their own motion, revis , revised the petitioner's pension with . This n with effect from 01.03.2016. This revision was n was undertaken under the Haryana C nsion) yana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part-I Rules, Rules, 2017, read with Office Memo 8 and Memorandum dated 10.01.2018 and Office Memo Memo dated 27.05.2019. However, n r this ever, neither any calculations for this revision were n were provided to the petitioner, nor tation r, nor did he make any representation inducing the g the authorities to pay any alleged ex vision ged excess amount. Thus, the revision was a unilat unilateral act of the respondents. Su 1, an ts. Subsequently, on 31.03.2021, an amount of t of ₹6,63,688/- was deducted from bank from the petitioner's personal bank account with t with Respondent No. 4 Bank. The ed as k. The transaction was remarked as ‘Recovery of ery of Excess Pension.’ This recovery prior covery was effected without any prior notice, show show-cause, or opportunity of hearing earing to the petitioner. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP-32 32661-2024 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid actio legal id action, the petitioner issued a legal notice-cum- -representation dated 22.06.2022 ndent .2022 (Annexure P-2) to Respondent No. 2, reque requesting the refund of the recover ng no ecovered amount. Upon receiving no response, the se, the petitioner approached this Cour 207 of s Court by way of CWP No. 18207 of 2022. Vide o Vide order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexu
Decision
sed of nnexure P-3), this Court disposed of the said writ d writ petition with a direction to R the to Respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's re ner's representation by passing a speak speaking order within eight weeks. 5. In purported compliance w ce with ction, the aforesaid direction, Respondent N dent No. 2 passed the impugned order .2022 d order/endorsement dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P ure P-4) whereby the petitioner's clai . The r's claim for refund was rejected. The respondent au dent authority justified the recovery b lerical very by stating that due to a ‘clerical error,’ the pe the petitioner had been inadvertently ances tently paid two Dearness Allowances (DA), one o one on the revised pension and ano nsion, d another on the unrevised pension, from April 2 pril 2019 to February 2021, amoun ent of amounting to an excess payment of ₹28,856/- pe per month. The impugned orde at the d order further insinuated that the petitioner, be ner, being an educated person, must e has , must have been aware that he has received an d an excess payment. Being aggri order aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P ure P-4), the petitioner has filed the pr the present writ petition. CONTENTI ENTIONS 6. Learned counsel for the petitio at the petitioner inter alia submits that the hefty recover ecovery of ₹6,63,688/- was effected ssuing fected on 31.03.2021 without issuing any prior s rior show-cause notice, notice of any ce of recovery, or providing any PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP-32 32661-2024 opportunity unity of hearing to the petitioner ugned ioner and therefore, the impugned recovery is in ry is in violation of principles of nature grant nature justice. Furthermore, the grant of pension sion to the petitioner is governed icipal verned by the Haryana Municipal Employees P yees Pension and General Provident F (1) of ident Fund Rules, 1993. Rule 9(1) of these rules m ules makes the Punjab Civil Services R icable vices Rules, Volume II (as applicable to Haryana) yana) applicable mutatis mutandis. T rt was . The attention of this Court was drawn to the to the Note under Rule 2.2(a) of the Rules, of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. A e II. A bare reading of Clause II of thi clear I of this Note makes it explicitly clear that no recov recovery of the nature described in cl cludes d in clauses (1) to (3), which includes recovery of ry of over-issues of pay and allo d by d allowances, may be effected by deduction fro ion from a pension already sanctioned r with ctioned, except at the request or with the express press consent of the pensioner. In nsent, r. In the present case, no consent, request, or e t, or even prior intimation was obtai before obtained from the petitioner before effecting the ng the recovery. Therefore, the recove made recovery is per se illegal being made without the a t the authority of law. 7. Learned counsel further subm se is submits that the present case is squarely cove ly covered by the judgement rendered Court dered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih at the asih 2015(1) SCT 195 and that the impugned rec ned recovery is in direct violation of t by the on of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Ape le Apex Court. Reliance is also pla of the placed on the judgements of the Hon’ble Sup le Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad 024 asad Singh v. State of Bihar 2024 AIR Suprem reme Court 3950 and Thomas Dani SCC Daniel v. State of Kerala 2022 SCC OnLine SC 5 SC 536. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP-32 32661-2024 8. Per contra, learned counsel for ts that sel for the respondent(s) submits that the pension o sion of the petitioner has been revised 19 by evised in the month of April, 2019 by giving him him the benefit of pension revisi revision in terms of the 7th Pay Pay Commission. ission. However, due to a clerical er nce in ical error, old dearness allowance in addition to n to the revised pension was rele Upon s released to the petitioner. Upon rectifying th ing the aforesaid error, in the mont xcess month of March, 2021, the excess amount of R t of Rs.6,63,688/- paid from April, , was April, 2019 to February, 2021, was immediately iately deducted from the account of th arned nt of the petitioner. However, learned counsel could l could not controvert the reliance pla el for nce placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner itioner on Rafiq Masih’s case (supra). pra). OBSERVAT RVATION & ANALYSIS 9. Having heard learned counsel fo rusing nsel for the parties and after perusing the record w ord with their able assistance, the fo before the following questions arise before this Court for urt for adjudication: i. Whe Whether the recovery of excess pay the s payment can be effected from the pensio nsion of a Government employee aft e of e after retirement, in the absence of his exp s express consent? ii. Wh Whether the pension of a Gov duly Government employee, once duly author thorised, can subsequently be refi after refixed to his disadvantage after retirem tirement? PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 CWP-32 32661-2024 Recovery fro y from Pension after retirement 10. Rule 9(1) of the Haryana Mun n and a Municipal Employees Pension and General Prov l Provident Fund Rules, 1993 provide rvices rovides that the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volum Volume II (as applicable to the State icable State of Haryana) shall be applicable mutatis muta utandis for the grant of pension. Th of the on. The Note under Rule 2.2(a) of the Punjab Civil Civil Services Rules, Volume II dea nsion II deals with recovery from pension and is reprod reproduced below: “Note. known ote.─ A claim against the Gover own and the question of making rec ome overnment employee may become g recovery may arise─ (a) Wh pensio ) When the calculation of pension nsion is actually sanctioned; or the sion is being made and before the (b) afte after the pension has been sanctio ctioned. The cl catego e claim and the recovery may be tegories:- ing be one or other of the following (1) Rec to Gov person ) Recovery as a punitive measure in Government as a result of negligen rson concerned while he was in serv e in order to make good loss caused used f the ligence or fraud on the part of the service. (2) Re allowa house house ) Recovery of other Government du lowances or leave salary, or admit use rent, postal life insurance pr use building, travelling allowance o pay, nt dues such as over issues of pay, dmitted and obvious dues such as as car, e premia, outstanding motor car, nce or other advances. (3) Rec ues. ) Recovery of non-Government dues. I. In ca In cases falling under:- (a) abo effecte the foll ) above, none of the recoveries ment fected by a reduction of the pension a e following circumstances:- be entioned in (1) to (3) above may be pt in ion about to be sanctioned except in (i) Omitted. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 CWP-32 32661-2024 (ii) When the pensioner by requ agreed that the recovery may b made or consent is not given to Governm admittedly due outstanding advances, etc., m pension. In such cases, howe concerned would have to consid to effect the recovery otherw example, by going to a court of has request made or consent given has ay be made. If such request is not not ums iven by the pensioner, even sums rent, ernment such as house rent, c., may not be recovered from rom ities owever, the executive authorities onsider whether they should not try t try for therwise than from pension, for rt of law, if necessary. II. In c in clau alread of the conduc pensio pensio miscon occurr would purpos neglige had re . In cases falling under (b) above, n clauses (1) to (3) may be effected b ready sanctioned except at the requ the pensioner. Under rule 2.2 (a nduct is an implied condition of e nsion can be withheld or withdra nsioner is convicted of serious isconduct. This, however, refers curring after the pensioner has ret uld not, therefore, cover a reduc rpose of retrieving loss caused t gligence or fraud on the part of the d retired from service. ve, none of the recoveries described ibed sion ted by the deduction from a pension request or with the express consent sent ood .2 (a) of this Volume, future good d a of every grant of a pension and a drawn in whole or in part if the the rave us crime or is guilty of grave rs only to crime or misconduct duct s retired from service, and the rule rule the eduction of pension made for the ed to Government as a result of t of e he f the pensioner occurring before he In case even remark cases where the pensioner does no en of sums admittedly due to marks under I (ii) above will also be s not agree to recovery being made ade ding to Government, the concluding so be applicable…” 11. Clearly, with respect to cases other cases involving recovery of other (Emphasis supplied) Government ment dues, such as over issues of pay , etc., of pay, allowances, leave salary, etc., after pension ension has been sanctioned, the N licitly the Note to Rule 2.2(a) explicitly stipulates tha tes that such recovery may be made f the ade from the pension only upon the request or wi or with the express consent of the pe f such he pensioner. In the absence of such consent, no d t, no deduction can be effected from such from the pension. However, in such PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 CWP-32 32661-2024 circumstance stances, the concerned executive auth rty to e authorities shall remain at liberty to pursue recov recovery through other lawful mean legal means by availing appropriate legal remedies befo es before a competent Court. 12. Further still, the Punjab Civil S I have ivil Services Rules, Volume II have been replaced eplaced by the Haryana Civil Services which ervices (Pension) Rules, 2016, which came into e into effect on 19.07.2016 and gove ers of govern the pensionary matters of Government ment employees in the State of Harya les of Haryana. Rule 11 of the said Rules of 2016 pertains ertains to the recovery of Governme from ernment dues or other amounts from pension and i n and is reproduced below: “11. R 1. Recovery of Government dues or o s or others from pension.― (1) A and th ) A claim against the Government d the question of making recovery sh own ent employee shall become known ry shall arise─ (i) wh pensio when the calculation of pension nsion is actually sanctioned; or the ion is being made and before the (ii) aft ) after the pension has been sanctio nctioned. (2) Th catego ) The claim and the recovery shall b tegories:- ing all be one or other of the following (a) rec to Gov person ) recovery as a punitive measure in Government as a result of neglig rson concerned while he was in serv e in order to make good loss caused used f the ligence or fraud on the part of the service; (b) rec allowa house buildin ) recovery of other Government du lowances or leave salary, or admit use rent, travelling allowance, o ilding, or other loans and advances pay, t dues such as over issues of pay, dmitted and obvious dues such as h as ouse e, outstanding motor car, house nces, licence fee, etc; (c) Rec ues. ) Recovery of non-Government dues. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 CWP-32 32661-2024 (3) Re made f and a retirem of the pensio written pensio ll be se (2) (b) and (c) above shall be ) Recoveries described in clause ( he employee, such as arrears of pay pay ade from outstanding dues of the em um- , leave encashment, death-cum lea leave salary, d allowances, one ief on pension, etc., however, none tirement gratuity, dearness relief o e affected by a reduction of the the the above recoveries shall be af the lready sanctioned except with the nsion to be sanctioned or alread the If such consent is not given by the ritten consent of the pensioner. If su ll be filed in a court of law. nsioner, a suit for recovery shall be Note 1 agains such a gratuit recove comple death from p itself th recove te 1.- Heads of offices shall ensure ainst the employee are adjusted ag h as pay, leave salary or leave enc atuity, etc. In case the outstanding covered fully then the outstanding mpletely noted in the last pay certifi ath-cum-retirement gratuity and if m pension, it shall be clearly reco elf that the request or express conse cover from his pension has been obta nsure that all the outstanding sums ums d against the dues of the employee oyee ent encashment, death-cum-retirement nding sums are not feasible to be be and ding amount shall be clearly and rom ertificate for effecting recovery from d if the recovery is to be effected cted cate recorded on the last pay certificate g to onsent of the pensioner in writing to obtained. Note 2 recove concer te 2.- The recovery from pension covery has been made it need not ncerned.” sion is not permissible but if final final oner not be refunded to the pensioner 13. Therefore, under Rule 11 as we overy as well, in cases involving recovery of other Gov r Government dues, such as over is leave ver issues of pay, allowances, leave salary, etc., a etc., after pension has been sanction all be anctioned, no such recovery shall be affected by a d by a reduction of the pension except f the cept with the written consent of the pensioner. If . If such consent is not given by th overy by the pensioner, a suit for recovery shall be file e filed in a competent Court. Acco at the . Accordingly, it is evident that the legislative m tive mandate calls for an express wr sioner ess written consent of the pensioner before any re any recovery can be effected from his m his pension. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 CWP-32 32661-2024 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court h at the ourt has unequivocally held that the service condi conditions of an employee are gover at the governed by the rules in force at the time of their f their retirement; consequently, any r r shall , any rules introduced thereafter shall have no appl o application to them. Reliance in th on the in this regard can be placed on the judgements o ents of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ingh rt in State of Punjab v. Boota Singh 2000(3) SCC SCC 733 and State of Punjab v. J.L. two- . J.L. Gupta 2000 (2) SCT 8. A two Judge Bench Bench judgement of the Hon’ble Su ingh ble Supreme Court in Boota Singh (supra), spea , speaking through Justice Sujata V. M ta V. Manohar, opined as under: “7. On by the orders comin differe rules a person They c benefit the co arbitra On merits we find that the retirem the respondent are benefits which ders/ notifications. Therefore, pe ming into force of these notificatio fferent rules of retirement than th les and were governed by the old rsons, who retired were governed ey cannot, therefore, be equated. nefits has financial implications also e conferment of such additional be bitrary.” irement benefits which are claimed med uent hich are conferred by subsequent the , persons who retired after the cations and order are governed by d by old n those who retired under the old old rules. The two categories of s of ned by two different sets of rules. es. onal ted. Further, granting of additional also. Hence, specifying the date for e for d as l benefits cannot be considered as 15. In the present case, the petit ce on petitioner retired from service on plied) (Emphasis supplied) 26.02.2016, w 016, when the Haryana Municipal E eneral ipal Employees Pension and General Provident Fu ent Fund Rules, 1993 were in force. at the force. These Rules provided that the Punjab Civil Civil Services Rules, Volume II ( ate of e II (as applicable to the State of Haryana) wo a) would apply mutatis mutandis . The for the grant of pension. The Haryana Civ a Civil Services (Pension) Rules, ct on Rules, 2016 came into effect on 19.07.2016, i 016, i.e., subsequent to the petitioner ly, the itioner’s retirement. Accordingly, the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 CWP-32 32661-2024 petitioner’s c ner’s case shall be governed by the Civil y the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Ru es Rules, Volume II (as applicabl yana). plicable to the State of Haryana). Moreover, Ru ver, Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Serv 6 also l Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 also states that an hat any claim to pension or family pe by the ily pension shall be regulated by the provisions of ons of the rules in force at the time w yee is ime when a Government employee is retired, disch , discharged or allowed to resign from e may from service or dies, as the case may be. Rule 4 is le 4 is reproduced as under: “4. Reg . Regulation of claims to pension or on or family pension.― Any cla provisi employ dies, a y claim to pension or family pension ovisions of the rules in force at the ti ployee is retired, discharged or allo es, as the case may be.” sion shall be regulated by the the time when a Government allowed to resign from service or 16. Moving on, the issue of effecti after effecting recovery from pension after retirement ha ent has come up for consideration bef Court on before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on multiple o ltiple occasions. In Rafiq Masih (sup of the (supra), a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Sup le Supreme Court has categorically h etired cally held that recovery from retired employees i ees is impermissible in law. Speaking Singh eaking through Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, the f r, the following was observed: “12. It would have m entitlem herein followi be imp 2. It is not possible to postulate al uld govern employees on the issue ve mistakenly been made by the titlement. Be that as it may, based rein above, we may, as a read llowing few situations, wherein reco impermissible in law: te all situations of hardship, which hich ents issue of recovery, where payments their the employer, in excess of their based on the decisions referred to d to ready reference, summarise the the ould recoveries by the employers, would PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 CWP-32 32661-2024 (i) Rec service Recovery from employees belonging rvice (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' se ging to Class-III and Class-IV D' service) (ii) Re retire w Recovery from retired employees, tire within one year, of the order of ees, or employees who are due to r of recovery. (iii) R made f is issue i) Recovery from employees, when ade for a period in excess of five yea issued. een hen the excess payment has been very years, before the order of recovery (iv) R require accord work a ) Recovery in cases where an e quired to discharge duties of a hi cordingly, even though he should h rk against an inferior post. n employee has wrongfully been been a higher post, and has been paid paid d to ld have rightfully been required to (v) In recove arbitra balanc ) In any other case, where the Cour covery if made from the employee, w bitrary to such an extent, as wou lance of the employer's right to reco that ourt arrives at the conclusion, that ee, would be iniquitous or harsh or h or able would far outweigh the equitable recover.” 17. Recently, a two-Judge Bench of urt in nch of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (Emphasis supplied) Jagdish Pras Prasad Singh (supra), speaking th ehta, ing through Justice Sandeep Mehta, has held as fo d as follows: “21. Govern excess long ti of Bih the exc time, Conve time, i paras o 1. We firmly believe that any overnment to reduce an employee cess amount cannot be applied retr ng time gap. In the case of Syed Ab Bihar and Others (2009) 3 SCC 4 e excess unauthorised payment is de e, it would be open for the em onversely, if the payment had been e, it would be iniquitous to mak ras of the Syed Abdul Qadir(supra) tate ny decision taken by the State the loyee's pay scale and recover the retrospectively and that too after a ter a tate d Abdul Qadir and Others v. State CC 475, this Court held that when hen is detected within a short period of d of me. e employer to recover the same. been made for a long duration of n of vant make any recovery. The relevant ra) are extracted hereinbelow: - "57. This Court, in a catena of d against recovery of excess paym a of decisions, has granted relief nces payment of emoluments/allowances PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 CWP-32 32661-2024 if (a) the excess amount was no misrepresentation or fraud on (b) if such excess payment was applying a wrong principle for c or on the basis of a particular in which is subsequently found to s not paid on account of any on the part of the employee, and was made by the employer by ce for calculating the pay/allowance lar interpretation of rule/order, d to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery i of any right in the employees, bu discretion to relieve the employe be caused if recovery is ordered proved that the employee had kn received was in excess of what w cases where the error is detected time of wrong payment, the mat judicial discretion, courts may, of any particular case, order for in excess. use ery is granted by courts not because ial s, but in equity, exercising judicial loyees from the hardship that will ered. But, if in a given case, it is ad knowledge that the payment r in hat was due or wrongly paid, or in tected or corrected within a short matter being in the realm of ay, on the facts and circumstances nces id r for recovery of the amount paid 59. Undoubtedly, the excess am appellant teachers was not beca or fraud on their part and the a knowledge that the amount that more than what they were entitl place to mention here that the F counter-affidavit, admitted that i their part. The excess payment m interpretation of the Rule that w which the appellants cannot be h whole confusion was because o carelessness of the officials con Bihar. Learned counsel appeari teachers submitted that majority either retired or are on the verg peculiar facts and circumstance avoid any hardship to the appel view that no recovery of the am excess to the appellant teachers the s amount that has been paid to the on because of any misrepresentation the appellants also had no t that was being paid to them was entitled to. It would not be out of he Finance Department had, in its that it was a bona fide mistake on ent made was the result of wrong at was applicable to them, for t be held responsible. Rather, the se of inaction, negligence and concerned of the Government of nt pearing on behalf of the appellant jority of the beneficiaries have verge of it. Keeping in view the tances of the case at hand and to ppellant teachers, we are of the e amount that has been paid in hers should be made." (emphasis supplied) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 CWP-32 32661-2024 22. Sim Others . Similarly, this Court in ITC Limited thers (2011) 7 SCC 493, held as unde nd mited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and under: - "108. We may give an example f where a principle of equity is fre to an employee in somewhat sim pay or other emoluments due to paid by the employer, and subse (usually on audit verification) th understanding of the applicable implementing the rules, excess p recognised the need to give limi of past excess payments, to redu employees, who benefited from ple from service jurisprudence, is frequently invoked to give relief t similar circumstances. Where the he and e to an employee is determined and ubsequently the employer finds, n) that on account of wrong able rules by the officers ess payment is made, courts have very limited relief in regard to recovery reduce hardship to the innocent "” rom such wrong interpretation. "” (Emphasis supplied) 18. In Thomas Daniel v. State of Ke SCT of Kerala and others, 2022 (2) SCT 722, a two- -Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Su rough ble Supreme Court speaking through Justice S. Ab S. Abdul Nazeer, observed that no mount at no recovery of the excess amount paid to an o an employee can be effected as no ted especially when there was no misrepresenta resentation on the part of the em levant the employee concerned. Relevant paragraph of aph of the said judgment is reproduced ducedas under:- “9. Th the exc misrep payme for cal interpr errone not rec becaus discret will be that if This Court in a catena of decision e excess amount was not paid on ac isrepresentation or fraud of the emp yment was made by the employer by r calculating the pay/allowance or o terpretation of rule/order which is s roneous, such excess payment of em t recoverable. This relief against the cause of any right of the employees b scretion to provide relief to the empl ll be caused if the recovery is ordere at if in a given case, it is proved that isions has consistently held that if n account of any employee or if such excess er by applying a wrong principle or on the basis of a particular is subsequently found to be of emoluments or allowances are t the recovery is granted not icial ees but in equity, exercising judicial mployees from the hardship that ld dered. This Court has further held that an employee had knowledge PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 CWP-32 32661-2024 that th paid, o time of discret particu at the payment received was in exces id, or in cases where error is detecte e of wrong payment, the matter bein scretion, the courts may on the facts rticular case order for recovery of a xcess of what was due or wrongly tected or corrected within a short being in the realm of judicial acts and circumstances of any of amount paid in excess.” (Emphasis supplied) (Emph 19. Adverting to the matter at hand er had t hand, admittedly, the petitioner had not given hi ven his express written consent to m his nt to effect any recovery from his pension. The n. Therefore, in light of Rule 2.2 of th Rules, 2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II an e II and Rule 11 of Haryana Civil S 2016, l Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, any recovery overy from the petitioner’s pension in nsent sion in absence of his written consent would be arb be arbitrary and illegal. Furthermore, urt in rmore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforemen rementioned judgements has settled t be ttled the law that no recovery can be effected from d from a retired employee especial excess pecially in cases where the excess amount was t was not disbursed on account of any ud on of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of t rt of the employee or, if such exce y the excess payment was made by the employer by er by applying a wrong principle for nce or le for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basi e basis of a particular interpretat ch is rpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently uently found to be erroneous. 20. Moreover, the petitioner was nei ce nor as neither served with any notice nor afforded an d an opportunity of hearing prior to ected, rior to the recovery being effected, rendering the ing the entire action in teeth of the prin two- he principles of natural justice. A two Judge Bench Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in icals rt in M/s Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Limited and and another v. State of U.P. an 283, . and another 2019 (12) JT 283 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 CWP-32 32661-2024 speaking thro hrough Justice S. Ravindra Bhat an be Bhat has held that no person can be inflicted wit d with an adverse order without imum ithout being afforded a minimum opportunity o unity of hearing and a prior intimat levant ntimation of the same. The relevant paragraph of aph of the judgment is reproduced as u d as under:- “15. In the present case, even Chaudhary, the accused in th involved and had sought to ind that ipso facto could not have the kind which the State resort was never granted any opportu represent against the impugned lodestar that lights the judicia this: that no one can be inf without being afforded a mini and prior intimation of such a m entrenched in the legal ethos o the state did, in this case.” nder even if one assumes that Surender n the pending criminal case was was indulge in objectionable activities, ties, n of ave resulted in unilateral action of esorted to against Daffodils, which hich e to ortunity of hearing or a chance to tant ned order. If there is one constant dicial horizon in this country, it is it is der, inflicted with an adverse order, ing, minimum opportunity of hearing, h a move. This principle is too well well d, as os of this country to be ignored, as plied) (Emphasis supplied) 21. It must be pointed out that on’ble that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Co e Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) w ed by was subsequently considered by another two r two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Su rt of ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab & Ha & Haryana and others v. Jagdev Sin herein v Singh, 2016 (4) SCT 286, wherein the Court, s urt, speaking through Justice D.Y. if an D.Y. Chandrachud, held that if an employee ha ee has furnished an undertaking a xcess ing agreeing to refund any excess amount that m t that may later be found to have been overy e been erroneously paid, the recovery of such exc excess payment would be lega levant legally permissible. The relevant paragraphs of aphs of the judgement are reproduced a uced as under: PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 CWP-32 32661-2024 “9. Th High C cannot service situatio furnish revised excess the rev fact th of the The submission of the Responden igh Court, was that a payment wh nnot be recovered from an emplo rvice of the state. This, in our view tuation such as the present where a rnished by the officer at the tim vised accepting that any payment cess would be liable to be adjusted. e revised pay scale, the Responden ct that a future re-fixation or revisi . the excess payment, if any, made. the ndent, which found favour with the t which has been made in excess cess the mployee who has retired from the to a view, will have no application to a ere an undertaking was specifically cally ially time when his pay was initially ent found to have been made in e in sted. While opting for the benefit of it of the ndent was clearly on notice of the ent evision may warrant an adjustment 10. In this Co of har employ would . In State of Punjab & Ors etc. v. R is Court held that while it is not pos hardship where payments have ployer, in the following situations uld be impermissible in law: v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. etc. ions t possible to postulate all situations an ave mistakenly been made by an oyer tions, a recovery by the employer xx xx x xx xx 11. Th to a si officer clearly in exce undert the un The principle enunciated in prop a situation such as in the present ficer to whom the payment was m early placed on notice that any paym excess would be required to be refu dertaking while opting for the revi e undertaking.” pply proposition (ii) above cannot apply sent case. In the present case, the , the was as made in the first instance was payment found to have been made ade refunded. The officer furnished an d an d by revised pay scale. He is bound by 22. In the present case, however, rd to ever, there is nothing on record to plied) (Emphasis supplied) indicate that e that the petitioner had, at any stage, to the stage, furnished an undertaking to the effect that an that any excess amount subsequently f eously ently found to have been erroneously paid would b ld be refunded or could be recover el for ecovered. In fact, learned counsel for the petitione titioner has placed on record an ad rically an additional affidavit categorically PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18 CWP-32 32661-2024 asserting tha ng that no such undertaking or affida y the affidavit was ever submitted by the petitioner. 23. Furthermore, surprisingly, Re t the y, Respondent No.4–Bank, at the behest of Re of Respondents No. 1 to 3, effected oner’s fected recovery from the petitioner’s personal acco al account on 31.03.2021 under the n ery of the name and style of “Recovery of Excess Pensi Pension”, without obtaining his cons otice. s consent or issuing any prior notice. The recovery covery was effected despite in the abs vision he absence of any statutory provision empowering ering the Respondent-Bank to take a ereby take an action of this nature, thereby rendering the ing the act wholly arbitrary and with ently, without authority of law. Recently, the Reserve serve Bank of India has also issu dated o issued the Master Circular dated 025 01.04.2025 (RBI/2025-26/05) to all ag all agency Banks regarding the the disbursement ement of Government pension. Cla resaid n. Clause 5 and 6 of the aforesaid circular deal r deal with the refund of excess pensio nt and pension payment to Government and are reproduce roduced as under: Whenever any excess/overpaymen ereof should be credited to the Gove mediately, when the excess/overpay rt of the agency bank. This action is e pensioner. Agency banks are reque spective Pension Sanctioning Author followed for recovery of excess pens unt ment is detected, the entire amount m Government account in lump sum rpayment is due to an error on the the om on is independent of recovery from equested to seek guidance from thorities regarding the process to pension paid to the pensioners, if “5. Wh thereo immed part of the pen respec be follo any. rors to the pensioner is due to errors If the excess/wrong payment to t 6. If t with anks may take up the matter with mmitted by the government, banks commi ses with respective Government ent e full particulars of the cases the fu ust n of the matter. However, this must epartment for a quick resolution of Depart ity’s the government authority’s nd time bound exercise and a be a PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19 CWP-32 32661-2024 acknow The ba withou knowledgement to this effect must e banks may take up such cases ithout reference to the Reserve Bank ord. ust be kept on the bank’s record. ents ases with government departments Bank of India.” 24. Therefore, while the entire e unt is tire excess or overpaid amount is (Emphasis supplied) required to be d to be immediately credited to the Go p sum the Government account in lump sum where such e such excess payment has occurred du f the due to an error on the part of the agency bank ank, in cases where the overpaym akes rpayment has resulted from mistakes committed by d by the Government, the banks are matter ks are mandated to take up the matter with the con e concerned Government departmen ars of rtment, furnishing full particulars of each case. N ase. Notably, there is nothing in the gency in the circular that authorises agency banks to uni to unilaterally debit or recover the al m the the alleged excess amount from the pensioner’s a ner’s account without obtaining his c notice g his consent or issuing prior notice where the o the overpayment has resulted from y the from mistakes committed by the ment. Government. Refixa efixation of Pension after retiremen ment A. Positio osition of Law under the Punjab Ci e II jab Civil Services Rules, Volume II 25. Rule 9.15 of the Punjab Civil S deals ivil Services Rules, Volume II deals with refixatio fixation/revision of pension after auth ced as er authorisation and is reproduced as under: “9.15. provisi assessm Govern accoun .15. Revision of pension after auth ovisions of rules 2.1 and 2.2, pensi sessment shall not be revised overnment employee, unless such r count of detection of a clerical erro the authorisation.– (1) Subject to the final pension once authorised after final sed to the disadvantage of the the y on ch revision becomes necessary on error subsequently : PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 20 CWP-32 32661-2024 Provi pensio Accoun Depart period ovided that no revision of pensio nsioner shall be ordered by the countant-General, Punjab, witho epartment of Finance, if the cler riod of two years from the date of au the ension to the disadvantage of the the Head of Office or by the the the the ithout er a clerical error is detected after a of authorisation of pension. the concurrence of (2) Fo employ requiri period ) For the purpose of sub-rule ployee shall be served with a n quiring him to refund the excess riod of two months from the date of ent ule (1), the retired Government a notice by the Head of Office ffice in a cess payment of pension within a te of receipt of notice by him. (3) In the He excess payme Head o ) In case the Government employee e Head of Office shall, by an ord cess payment, shall be adjusted in yments of pension in future, in on ead of Office, may direct. tice, oyee fails to comply with the notice, order in writing, direct that such such ed in instalments by making short hort the in one or more instalments, as the Note. applica alongw he or i pensio of that retaine Accoun thereo alongw the licate shall be obtained from the ote.– An undertaking in triplicate on from the Government of Punjab njab plicant who is to receive pension fr that grant of pension to the effect that ongwith his application for the gra any heirs will refund the amount of any or in the case of his death his heirs aid to him erroneously or in excess cess nsionary or any other benefit paid t ll be the undertaking so obtained will be that due to him and a copy of the u the the sanctioning authority and tained each by the pension sa d Entitlement) Punjab and one copy copy countant-General (Accounts and En rned District Treasury Officer concerned ereof will be forwarded to the Distr der.” ongwith the pension payment order.” (Emphasis supplied) plied) 26. Thus, as per Rule 9.15, the ge once the general rule is that pension once authorised af ised after final assessment shall not be age of not be revised to the disadvantage of the Governm vernment employee. However, revisio le if it revision of pension is permissible if it becomes ne es necessary on account of dete f detection of a ‘clerical error ror’ subsequently uently. For this purpose, the retired Go erned ired Government employee concerned shall be serve e served with a notice by the Head of O fund ad of Office ‘requiring him to refund PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21 CWP-32 32661-2024 the excess pa ss payment of pension’ within a peri e date a period of two months from the date of receipt of ipt of notice by him. If the Governm omply overnment employee fails to comply with the notic e notice, the Head of Office shall, by o t such ll, by order in writing, direct that such excess paym payment shall be adjusted in insta nts of installments by short payments of pension in fu n in future. However, it must be obs ressly e observed that Rule 9.15 expressly states that it i hat it is “subject to the provision of ru of rules 2.1 and 2.2.” 27. The phrase ‘subject to’ merely of the erely subjects the provisions of the subject-sub- -sections to the provisions of s. In ns of the master-sub-sections. In situations wh ns where no clash arises, the phrase ha ever, rase has no operative effect; however, if there is a c is a conflict, it makes clear which p three- hich provision must prevail. A three Judge Bench Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Cour d. v. e Court in Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A. Rashee sheed 2004(4) SCC 460, speaking a has aking through Justice S.B. Sinha has observed as u ed as under: “18. In SCALE 8. In Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of ALE 224] this Court noticed: (1) te of Tamil Nadu & Anr. [2004 (1) "Subject to" is an expression w The order is conclusive for all p sed. on whereby limitation is expressed. all purposes. 19. Th stating . This Court further noticed the dic ting: t to" dictionary meaning of "subject to" "Furthermore, the expression 's to. ffect on 'subject to' must be given effect In Black's Law Dictionary, F expression "Subject to" has bee the y, Fifth Edition at page 1278 the s been defined as under: "Liable, subordinate, subser governed or affected by; provid to; to; bservient, able rovided that; provided, answerable inferior, obedient PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 22 CWP-32 32661-2024 for. Homan v. Employers Reinsu S.W. 2d 289, 302" 136 einsurance Corp, 345 Mo. 650, 136 20. Re Sons & is mis Section could may be . Reliance placed by Mr. Bhat in K ns & Co. v. The State of Madras [ A misplaced. In that case, an exem ction 5 of the Madras General Sal uld be granted only subject to such ay be prescribed and in that context and in K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty and s [ AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1152] 52] d in exemption provision contained in hich l Sales Tax Act was invoked which s, as such restrictions and conditions, as text it was held: ".....On a proper interpretation o the exemption under the lice observance of the condition restrictions which are imposed b the rules or in the licence itsel from assessment as long as he c licence and not that he is enti conditions upon which the licen The use of the words "su effectuating the intention of the in our opinion, is "conditional tion of the section it only means that that the licence is conditional upon the the the itions prescribed and upon sed by and under the Act whether in er in mpt itself; that is, a licensee is exempt he conforms to the conditions of the f the the entitled to exemption whether the not. licence is given are fulfilled or not. "subject to" has reference to to ing, f the law and the correct meaning, nal upon."” plied) (Emphasis supplied) 28. Furthermore, a Three-Judge Ben ourt ge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissio issioner of Wealth Tax, A.P., Hyde yderabad v. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam's Fam Family 1977(3) SCC 362, speaking wati aking through Justice P.N. Bhagwati has held as fo d as follows: “13. L respec Section to the Section 21 and special yield t for ass e of a trust would be assessable in le in 3. Let us assume that the trustee of e of er Section 3, even in the absence of spect of the trust properties under S bject s the charge of wealth tax 'subject ction 21. But section 3 imposes the t and these other provisions include lude the other provisions' of the Act and tion e, made expressly subject to section ction 21. Section 3 is, therefore, ma akes tion in so far as the latter makes and it must yield to that section of a trustee. Section 21 and it must ust ecial provision for assessment of a sion the latter makes special provision eld to that section in so far as the ust... r assessment of a trustee of a trust PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 23 CWP-32 32661-2024 xx xx x xx xx would, therefore, be clear on a co It wou d 21 that whenever assessment is and 21 ade in accordance with the provisio made i sessment in a trustee must necessa assessm cannot be assessed apart from he can ovisions of that section. To take a provisi e revenue to assess the trustee und the rev e provisions of Section 21 would be the pro ords "subject to the other provision words nore the maxim generalia special is ignore manda andatory force and effect to the …” 21…” a combined reading of Sections 3 ns 3 t be t is made on a trustee, it must be visions of Section 21. Every case if se if and cessarily fall under Section 21 and the om and without reference to the e a contrary view giving option to n to ing under Section 3 without following ld be to refuse to give effect to the the isions of this Act" in Section 3, to 3, to deny ial is bus non derogant and to deny tion the provisions enacted in Section plied) (Emphasis supplied) 29. As per sub-rules (2) and (3) o xcess (3) of Rule 9.15, where any excess pension has b n has been paid, the Head of Office is to the fice is required to issue a notice to the employee dir ee directing him to refund the excess ths. If excess amount within two months. If the employee ployee does not comply, the Head of ery of ead of Office may order recovery of the excess p cess payment by adjusting it in fut short in future installments through short payments of nts of pension, even without the nsent. t the retired employee’s consent. Therefore, th ore, there appears to be a conflict be (3) of lict between sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 9.15 an .15 and the Note under Rule 2.2(a) Rules, 2.2(a) Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, w e II, which expressly prohibits any rec nsion any recovery from sanctioned pension without the e t the express consent of the pensione ressly nsioner. Since Rule 9.15(1) expressly states that it i hat it is subject to the provision of Ru view of Rule 2.2, this Court is of the view that in cases cases where any excess payment has nsion t has been made towards the pension of a retired e tired employee, recovery is allowed o ent of wed only with the express consent of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 24 CWP-32 32661-2024 the employee ployee. This interpretation is also in c ement so in consonance with the judgement of the Hon’bl Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masi asih’s case (supra). 30. At this juncture, it must also b bined also be pointed out that a combined reading of R of Rule 9.4(b)(iii) and Rule 6.19(c rvices 6.19(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volum Volume II indicates that pension mus sis of n must be calculated on the basis of the employee ployee’s last drawn pay. The authori only uthorities are required to check only the accuracy uracy of the emoluments for the 24 eding he 24 months immediately preceding the date of r te of retirement, and not for any ea iii) is ny earlier period. Rule 9.4(b)(iii) is reproduced a uced as under: “(iii) calcula from t during emolum correc the cor preced for any iii) Calculation of Average emo lculation of average emoluments, t m the service book, the correctn ring the last ten months of service oluments during the last ten m rrectly shown in the service book, e correctness of emoluments for the eceding the date of retirement of a G r any period prior to that date.” (Em emoluments.–For the purpose of of erify ts, the Head of Office shall verify awn ectness of the emoluments drawn rvice. In order to ensure that the the been n months of service have been ook, the Head of Office may verify erify r the period of twenty-four months nths not of a Government employee, and not (Emphasis supplied) 31. The following observations ma ch of ns made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in urt in Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punj 015, Punjab and others CWP-881-2015 decided on 02 d on 02.05.2017 are worth noting in th g in this regard: “I am Howev the gr that th with R shows and th am of the view that the increm owever, then the question would ari e grant of said increments, the sa at these were wrongly granted? A p ith Rule 6.19(c) of the Punjab Ci ows that for reckoning pension, th d the office is to verify only the cor ted. ncrements were wrongly granted. d arise whether after 14-20 years of rs of ting e same can be withdrawn, stating ? A perusal of Rule 9.4(b)(iii) read read b Civil Services Rules, Volume II e II seen n, the last drawn pay is to be seen s for e correctness of the emoluments for PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 25 CWP-32 32661-2024 the pe Govt. E the Ac service the inc Theref on 03. Punjab the pa Suprem (White be effe e period of 24 months preceding ovt. Employee and not for any perio e Accountant General was not just rvice record of the petitioner to see e increments of proficiency step ups erefore, the order of withdrawing th 03.07.1993 and 03.07.1999 are co njab Civil Services Rules, Volume e pay was wrongly fixed, in view o preme Court “State of Punjab a hite Washer) etc.”, 2015(2)SCC (C effected from the retiral dues of the the ing the date of retirement of the period prior to that date. Therefore, fore, ntire justified in checking up the entire age, see whether from the initial stage, p ups were correctly granted or not. not. nted ing the proficiency step ups granted e contrary to Rule 9.4(b)(iii) of the f the ume II. Even if, it is assumed that that the ew of the authority of Hon'ble the b and others etc. v Rafiq Masih asih nnot C (Civil) 608, the recovery cannot f the petitioner. In som Kumar 2014 ( recove pensio 10 mon Rules, 24 mon not for somewhat similar circumstances umar Singhal v Pramukh Sachiv Irr 14 (3) S.C.T. 98, quashed the r covery orders. In the Rule under con nsion fixation authority then enquir months, whereas under Rule 9.4(b)( les, Volume II, the correctness of th months preceding the date of retire t for any period prior to that date, ar shil nces, the Apex Court in “Sushil rs.”, iv Irrigation Department and Ors.”, he refixation of the pay and the the , the r consideration in the said case, the quire the emoluments only for last last 4(b)(iii) of the Punjab Civil Services ices d of of the emoluments for the period of and etirement of the Govt. employee and te, are verified.” 32. In view of the aforemention and entioned statutory provisions and plied) (Emphasis supplied) judgements, ents, the following position of law to the f law emerges with respect to the Punjab Civil Civil Services Rules, Volume II: a. The ge The general rule is that pension once a sment once authorised after final assessment shall not be revised to the disadvantag shall n loyee. vantage of the Government employee. However, such revision is permissible Howev nly on ssible if it becomes necessary only on account of detection of a clerical err accoun lerical l error subsequently. If the clerical error is detected after a period of error i te of od of two years from the date of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 26 CWP-32 32661-2024 authorisation of pension, revision of pe authori y with n of pension can be ordered only with the concurrence of the Department of F the con nt of Finance. b. A revis A revision of pension that adversely a loyee, rsely affects a Government employee, when undertaken after an unduly long when u if the y long delay, is not permissible if the resulting hardship, inequity, or arbi resultin h the r arbitrariness would outweigh the nsion. employer’s right to revise the pension. employ c. An or An order revising pension can be n be passed only after serving th g the employee with a notice and affordi employ ity of affording him a fair opportunity of hearing. Any order issued in the hearing e and the absence of such notice and opportunity is illegal and void. opport d. In cas In cases where excess pension has ery is n has been paid and recovery is contemplated, the general rule flowi contem Rule flowing from the Note under Rule 2.2(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rul 2.2(a) gment es Rules, Volume II and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R of the at no Rafiq Masih (supra) is that no recovery can be made from a retired recove of his etired employee in the absence of his express consent. However, where th expres ed an e the employee has furnished an undertaking to refund any excess am underta tly be ss amount that may subsequently be discovered to have been erroneously discov comes eously paid, such recovery becomes legally permissible, in view of the N legally d the the Note under Rule 9.15 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Cour decisio Court in Jagdev Singh (supra). B. Positio osition of Law under the Harya sion) Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, ules, 2016 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 27 CWP-32 32661-2024 33. Rule 78 of the Haryana Civil Ser 16, as ivil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, as ble applicable to t the employees of with the State of Haryana deals with the St refixation/rev ion/revision of pension and is reproduc produced as under: “78. R 8. Refixation of pension.― (1) Sub with t author employ ) Subject to the provision as laid do th the approval of the Finance D thorised shall not be refixed to the d ployee, unless such refixation becom also d down in rule 10 and 12, and also ce Department, the pension once once ent the disadvantage of the Government ecomes necessary on account of─ (a) det ) detection of a clerical error subseq bsequently; (b) refi ) refixation of pay at lower stage wit with retrospective effect: Provid pensio a perio ovided that no refixation of pensi nsioner shall be ordered by the pen period of five years from the date of the ension to the disadvantage of the after pension sanctioning authority after e of authorisation. (2) Wh concer author pensio receipt the pen Accoun of pens ) Where the pension is refixed under ncerned shall be served with a not thority, by registered post, for r nsioner shall send his reply within ceipt of notice. In case the pensioner e pension sanctioning authority shal countant General (Accounts & Entit pension and revised pension paymen nder (a) or (b) above, the pensioner oner notice by the pension sanctioning ning the or refixation of pension and the ithin two months from the date of e of tice, oner fails to comply with the notice, ipal shall, send the case to the Principal tion Entitlement), Haryana for refixation yment order. 34. A perusal of Rule 78 reveals ctions veals several significant distinctions when compa compared with the corresponding R Civil ing Rule 9.15 of the Punjab Civil Services Rule es Rules, Volume II. First, Rule 78 is Rule 78 is expressly made subject to Rule 10 (Pension nsion subject to future good conduc of the onduct) and Rule 12 (Power of the appointing au ting authority to withhold or withdraw Civil thdraw pension) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pe (Pension) Rules. Notably, unlike Civil nlike Rule 9.15 of the Punjab Civil Services Rule es Rules, Rule 78 is not made subject Civil bject to Rule 11 of the Haryana Civil PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 28 CWP-32 32661-2024 Services (Pen es (Pension) Rules, which governs the t dues rns the recovery of Government dues or other amou r amounts from pension (correspondin 2.2(a) ponding to the Note under Rule 2.2(a) of the Punjab Punjab Civil Services Rules). Second down ondly, although Rule 78 lays down the general r neral rule that pension once authoris to the uthorised shall not be refixed to the detriment of ent of the Government employee, such oyee, it nevertheless permits such refixation, w with the approval of the Finance comes nance Department, where it becomes necessary in ary in two limited circumstances: (i) of a es: (i) the subsequent detection of a clerical error l error, and (ii) refixation of pay at a ective y at a lower stage with retrospective effect. Thirdl hirdly, Rule 78 contains an express b nsion ress bar against refixation of pension to the disadv disadvantage of the pensioner after th the er the expiry of five years from the date of its au ts authorisation. 35. Furthermore, Rule 78 similarly ion of ilarly mandates that any refixation of pension may n may be undertaken only after issuin ee. If issuing a notice to the employee. If the pensione nsioner does not respond or comply nsion- mply with such notice, the pension sanctioning a ning authority is required to forwar ncipal forward the matter to the Principal Accountant G ntant General (Accounts & Entitleme ion of titlement), Haryana for refixation of pension. Sig n. Significantly, unlike Rule 9.15 of th Rules, 5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Rule 78 does 8 does not stipulate that the notice may xcess ce may relate to the “refund of excess payment of nt of pension.” In light of this distin view distinction, this Court is of the view that Rules 11 les 11 and 78 of the Haryana Civil S perate ivil Services (Pension) Rules operate in entirely di rely different spheres. Rule 11 specif ery of specifically governs the recovery of any excess a cess amount from the pension of a le 78 of an employee, whereas Rule 78 addresses situ ses situations where pension requires r ent uires refixation due to the subsequent PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 29 CWP-32 32661-2024 detection of on of a clerical error or the refixatio with fixation of pay at a lower stage with retrospective ective effect. Consequently, whereve yment herever recovery of excess payment from a Gover Government employee’s pension is co must n is contemplated, Rule 11 only must apply and th and therefore, recovery cannot be ef xpress be effected except with the express written conse consent of the pensioner. 36. In view of the above, the follow following position of law emerges under the Har he Haryana Civil Services (Pension) R ion) Rules, 2016: a. Subjec Subject to Rule 10 (Pension subject to 12 (Po 12 (Power of the appointing autho pensio pension) of the Haryana Civil Servic general rule is that pension once autho genera disadv disadvantage of the Government emplo permis permissible under Rule 78 with t Department, where Depart circumstances: circum Rule ject to future good conduct) and Rule authority to withhold or withdraw hdraw Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, the 6, the to the authorised shall not be revised to the t employee. However, such revision is sion is ith the approval of the Finance nance imited limited in mes necessary it becomes two (i) the subsequent detection of a n of a clerical error; (ii) refixation of pay at a lower s ower stage with retrospective effect. b. No refi No refixation of pension to the disadva ll be isadvantage of the pensioner shall be ordered by the pension sanctioning aut ordered ng authority after a period of five years from the date of authorisation. years f c. An ord An order revising pension can be passe ice on e passed only after serving a notice on the employee and affording him a fair o the em a fair opportunity of hearing. Any order issued in the absence of such not order i ch notice and opportunity is illegal and void. and vo d. In cas In cases where excess pension has ery is n has been paid and recovery is contemplated, the general rule flowi contem ryana lowing from Rule 11 of the Haryana PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 30 CWP-32 32661-2024 Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 a Civil S on’ble 2016 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (sup Suprem an be (supra) is that no recovery can be made from a retired employee in the a made f nsent. n the absence of his express consent. However, where the employee has furn Howev efund as furnished an undertaking to refund any excess amount that may subsequen any ex been sequently be discovered to have been erroneously paid, such recovery becom erroneo view becomes legally permissible, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Sup of the ingh le Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh (supra upra). CONCLUS LUSION 37. Abrupt recovery of pension w f the sion without the knowledge of the pensioner, ev ner, even if administratively justifie es far justified, produces consequences far beyond the l the legal sphere. Such an action u ect of ction undermines the very object of providing pe ing pension to the retired employees nomic loyees, i.e. to secure the economic dignity and e and emotional stability in the post- rom a -retirement stage of life. From a financial stan al standpoint, it causes immediate h mined diate hardship as the predetermined plans on the n the basis of legitimate expectation nsion, tation of a certain amount of pension, suddenly bec ly become unfeasible. Moreover, pens ely on r, pensioners often depend entirely on their monthly onthly pension to meet essential hou enses. ial household and medical expenses. Therefore, su ore, sudden deductions disturb their may their financial equilibrium and may lead to inab inability to meet healthcare needs . The needs or other basic expenses. The absence of p e of prior communication generates s ing of rates shock, anxiety, and a feeling of betrayal after l after long years of service. At an ad ctions t an administrative level, such actions PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 31 CWP-32 32661-2024 erode confid confidence in the fairness and cr er or nd credibility of the employer or government d ment department. Such conduct reflec ty and t reflects procedural insensitivity and weakens the ns the morale among both serving and often ng and retired employees which often results in a la in a lack of motivation to perform we rency rm well. The absence of transparency and compassi mpassion diminishes the institution’s h g and ion’s hard earned ethical standing and trust. public trust. 38. In that vein, this Court is of that is of the considered opinion that arbitrary or u ry or un-communicated recoveries co elfare ries contradict the spirit of a welfare administratio stration and demonstrate a lack of hum ll, the of humane consideration. Overall, the effect of su of such abrupt recovery extends b ror; it nds beyond administrative error; it reflects on th s on the sensitivity, fairness, and acco itself. d accountability of governance itself. Therefore, e ore, even where legal remedies e dence dies exist, administrative prudence demands tha ds that any recovery from pension otice, ension be preceded by due notice, consultation, tation, and empathetic handling cons of the g consistent with the dignity of the retired emplo employee. 39. In view of the above discussion, owed. ussion, the present petition is allowed. Consequently uently, the impugned order dated 1 4) is ated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P-4) is hereby quash quashed and set aside. The Respond d the espondents are directed to refund the amount recov t recovered from the petitioner, along of 6% along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum fr num from the date of institution of th til the of the present writ petition until the date of actual ual payment. Such payment shall b f three shall be made within a period of three months from s from the receipt of a certified copy of opy of this order. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 32 CWP-32 32661-2024 40. Furthermore, the Reserve Bank issue Bank of India is directed to issue appropriate i riate instructions to all agency Banks ery of Banks, clarifying that no recovery of excess amou amount from the pension of a G all be a Government employee shall be effected with d without the pensioner’s knowledg ut the wledge and consent, or without the issuance of a e of a prior notice. Any such recove to the recovery must strictly conform to the applicable se ble service rules and the principles dis les discussed hereinabove. 41. Pending application(s), if any, sh any, shall also stand disposed of. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE November P.C 04, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.17 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document