CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 1 of 19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.07.2026 Sunder Singh ...Petitioner(s) Vs. Engineer-in Chief and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Manbir Singh Batth, Advocate and Mr. Ritish Watts, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Samir Rathor, Advocate for respondent No.4. Ms. Swati Dayalan, and Mr. Rupender Singh Rana, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for respondent No.6-PNB. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 18.11.2016 and 5.11.2018 (Annexures P-10, P-20 and P-21), whereby the pay and allowances and resultantly pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner have been reduced illegally, in an arbitrary manner and against the rules and law; AND further issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner all the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 2 of 19 benefits due to him, which have not been allowed to him despite the representations made to the authorities such as ACP on completion of 8/16/24 years of service prior to retirement; AND further to issue an order or direction for staying the execution of letter dated 30.11.2019 (Annexure-P-23) issued by respondent No.6 vide which respondent No.6 demanded recovery of excess pension payment of Rs. 38975+1,71,268/- from 01.12.2012 up to 30.06.2019 from the petitioner and directed its Central Pension Procession Centre to start recovery equivalent to 1/3rd of petitioner's pension per month till the final disposal of the writ petition. The brief chronological sequence of events in the service record of the petitioner is as follows: - 09.06.1982: Petitioner was appointed on the post of Tracer by Respondent No.2 and joined Bhakra Beas Management Board, Nangal (hereinafter referred to as ‘BBMB’), against Haryana quota. 07.10.1996: On 07.10.1996 (Annexure P-1), petitioner was promoted as Draftsman on Adhoc Basis by General Manager/Project, Irrigation Dept. Haryana against share quota post of Haryana in BBMB. In order dated 07.10.1996, it is specifically stated in para 2 that promotion will not confer on him any claim/title of seniority over and above the officials who are senior to him in the Department. 19.11.1996: Petitioner assumed his duty as Draftsman. 23.07.2009: Vide order dated 23.07.2009 (Annexure P-2), petitioner was regularized as Draftsman w.e.f. 24.10.2000 by Respondent No.1. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 3 of 19 09.05.2012: Vide order dated 09.05.2012 (Annexure P-3), petitioner was granted ACP w.e.f. 01.12.2006 by Respondent No.1. 30.11.2012: Petitioner retired as Draftsman on attaining age of superannuation. Vide Notional Pay Fixation Statement (Annexure P-4), his last-drawn Salary was Rs.19,180/- and petitioner was sanctioned pension of Rs.9,590/- (Annexure P-5). 18.02.2013: Petitioner was issued PPO sanctioning pension of Rs.9,590/- p.m. and other retiral benefits. 28.03.2016: Vide letter dated 28.03.2016 (Annexure P-6), Respondent No.1 modified 1st ACP granted to petitioner vide order dated 09.05.2012 w.e.f 01.12.2006 (Annexure P-3); and ordered that 1st ACP is now to be granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.11.2010. 03.05.2016: Vide office order dated 03.05.2016 (Annexure P-9), on basis of Annexure P-6, pay of the petitioner was refixed by Respondent No.2. Now last drawn salary was fixed as Rs.19,170/- in place of Rs.19,180/- earlier fixed. Now pension of Rs.9,585/- was fixed. 18.11.2016: Vide impugned office order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure P- 10), Respondent no.2 again refixed pay by withdrawing the benefits of Adhoc Promotion. Now last drawn salary of the petitioner got reduced to Rs.17,230/- and pension reduced to Rs.8,615/-. 18.11.2016: Show Cause Notice dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure P-11) was issued to the petitioner to show as to why his pension may not be reduced as per fresh Pay Fixation order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure P- 10). DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 4 of 19 27.12.2016: Petitioner filed Reply dated 27.12.2016 (Annexure P-12), to the Notice dated 18.11.2016 that petitioner was given adhoc promotion against the share post of Haryana, and reduction and refixation of his pay is incorrect. 25.03.2017 and 31.05.2017: Petitioner vide these notices (Annexures P- 13 and P-14), requested for decision on Show Cause Notice twice, but no decision was taken or conveyed to the petitioner. 06.07.2017: Vide letter dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure P-18), Respondent No.2 informed petitioner that since the promotion of the petitioner was against vacancy, so petitioner was entitled for promotional increments only w.e.f. 19.11.1996 i.e. from the date the petitioner promoted as adhoc Draftsman and his pay will be refixed, subject to verification of Account Officer. 08.10.2018: Vide communication dated 8.10.2018 (Annexure P-19), Respondent No.2 sent the revised pension/Family pension/DCRG/Commutation of pension of petitioner to Principal Accountant. 05.11.2018: Vide impugned order dated 05.11.2018 (Annexure P-20), Respondent No.5 in compliance of order dated 08.10.2018 revised PPO of petitioner reducing pension from Rs.9,590/- p.m. to Rs.8,615/- p.m. w.e.f. 1.12.2012. Rs. 3446/- out of original pension has been commuted. Amount of pension @ Rs.9585 w.e.f. 01.12.2012 and DCRG , amounting to Rs.5,44,335/-, which were already paid, is adjusted. So, pension has been reduced to Rs.5,169/-. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 5 of 19 05.11.2018: Vide impugned order dated 05.11.2018 (Annexure P-21), Account Officer directed District Treasury Officer directing: - i. Reduced pension @ Rs.5,169/- p.m. may be paid to the petitioner from the date of receipt of commuted value of pension by pensioner. ii. Commuted value is to be recovered in instalments. 30.11.2019: Vide letter dated 30.11.2019 (Annexure P-23), petitioner was issued Recovery Notice. 17.02.2020: Hence, present Writ Petition seeking: Quashing of orders dated 18.11.2016 and 05.11.2018 (Annexures P-10, P-20 and P-21); whereby pay and allowances and resultantly pension and other retiral benefits of petitioner have been reduced; Mandamus: Directing respondents to allow petitioner all the benefits due to him; Direction for staying execution of letter dated 30.11.2019 (Annexure P-23) vide which Respondent No.6 demanded recovery of excess pension payment. 2. At the very outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner does not press his claim for seniority in view of the clear stipulation contained in his letter of promotion dated 07.10.1996 (Annexure P-1). It is submitted that petitioner presses the present Writ Petition only with regard to his claim for increment. 3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Action of the respondents in ordering revised pay fixation and pension by making recovery after a period of more than 5 years from the date of retirement is illegal. Especially, as the impugned orders have been issued without giving any proper opportunity to the petitioner to DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 6 of 19 defend his case. It is submitted that vide letter dated 06.07.2017 (Annexure P-18), respondents had themselves decided that the petitioner was entitled to promotional increment in the cadre of Draftsman w.e.f. 19.11.1996 i.e. the date on which the petitioner had joined as Draftsman; and that his pay was to be refixed accordingly however, subject to verification by the Accounts Officer. It is contended that the pension of the petitioner has been reduced by the respondents in contravention of their own order and without any justification. 4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner retired on 30.11.2012 as Draftsman, a Class III (Group-C) post and his final pension was sanctioned on 18.02.2013 (Annexure P-5) after due scrutiny of the service record which pension the petitioner had been drawing for more than 5 years. As per provisions of Rule 9.16 of Civil Services Rules Vol. II; subject to the provisions of Rule 2.2, pension once authorized/sanctioned after final assessment shall not be revised to the disadvantage of the Government Employee, unless such revision becomes necessary on account of detection of a clerical error subsequently. But in the case of the petitioner no recovery as well as reduction in pension are permissible after retirement and grant of final pension after a period of more than 5 years and that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has ruled that once there is no misrepresentation on the part of the employee/petitioner and the benefits have been granted by the department, no recoveries are to be effected after retirement of the employee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 7 of 19 in the case titled as State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih, reported as 2015 (4) SCC334 (Annexure P-22) has held that recovery from the retired/retiring employees belonging to Class-III and Class -IV Service or (Group "C" and Group "D" service) is not permissible. Thus, the pension once fixed after proper scrutiny can not be reduced to the detriment to the person concerned and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the above said judgment and as such neither during the pendency of the writ petition nor thereafter, can any recoveries be made from the retiral dues of the petitioner nor can the pension be reduced. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents in ordering the revised pay fixation and pension by making any recovery therefrom after a period of more than five years from the date of retirement and the petitioner having been retired honorably, there are no grounds to make any recovery as has been done in the case of the petitioner without giving any proper opportunity to defend his case and passing any lawful orders on the representations or replies of the petitioner to the show cause notices. Moreover, not even any orders have been passed against the petitioner by the respondents, which is quite illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and the law of land. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order (Annexure P-10) has not been passed by the competent authority which is respondent No.1; whereas the impugned DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 8 of 19 order has been passed by respondent No.2. It is accordingly prayed that present Writ Petition be allowed; and the impugned orders be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had been promoted as Draftsman vide order dated 07.10.1996 (Annexure P-1) against the share quota post of Haryana in BBMB. In the said order of adhoc promotion (Annexure P-1), it had been clearly stipulated that promotion of the petitioner will not confer on him any claim or title of seniority over and above the other officials. As such, petitioner has rightly given up his claim for seniority. 8. As regards pension, learned counsel submits that ACP had been wrongly given to the petitioner. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner clarifies that the petitioner was promoted as regular Draftsman w.e.f. 24.10.2000. Thus, he was eligible for 1st ACP w.e.f. 01.11.2010 on completion of 10 years’ regular & satisfactory service as per criteria fixed in ACP Rules of 2008; wherein it was provided that only regular and satisfactory service is taken into consideration for granting the benefit of ACP. The petitioner got retired on dated 30.11.2012 after attaining the age of superannuation and at the time of retirement, his pay for the purpose of fixation of pension was fixed notionally on the basis of error committed earlier in the Haryana pay scale and the petitioner continued receiving the benefit of wrong pay fixation even after retirement. Ld. State Counsel further submits that subsequently it DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 9 of 19 was discovered that adhoc promotion had been accorded to the petitioner only for the purpose of posting in BBMB. The first ACP had been inadvertently and incorrectly granted to the petitioner. Needless to say, pay of the petitioner was to be regulated on his substantive post which is that of Tracer. Upon discovery, the said error was duly rectified vide the impugned order, the same can therefore not to be stated to be suffering from any illegality. 9. As regards contention of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure P-10) has not been passed by competent authority, learned State counsel points out that Annexure P- 10 was passed pursuant to order dated 28.03.2016. Even order dated 03.05.2016 was passed on the basis of order dated 28.03.2016, which had been passed by the competent Authority i.e. respondent No.1. It is contended that therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed with competence. 10. Lastly, learned State Counsel submits that reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) is misconceived as the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide subsequent judgment dated 29.07.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3500 of 2006 titled as High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh (Annexure R- 8) has clarified that recovery is liable to be made in cases where undertaking has been given by the officer at the time when his pay was initially revised that any payment found to have been made in excess would be adjusted. It is pointed out that in the present case also, the DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 10 of 19 petitioner had made a declaration dated (Annexure R-10); wherein he had given undertaking that excess pension/ Family pension/ DCRG/ Commutation if paid in excess would be refunded. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 11. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the parties. I have heard ld. counsel for the parties and perused the case file in detail. I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent-State. 12. The petitioner was given adhoc promotion to the post of Draftsman vide order dated 07.10.1996 (Annexure P-1) on the request of BBMB vide letter dated 26.03.1996 (Annexure R-2). As already noted above, in the letter of promotion dated 07.10.1996 (Annexure P-1), it is clearly stipulated that “The promotion of the official will not confer on him any claim/ title of seniority over and above the officials who are senior to him in the Department.” Accordingly, petitioner is rightly not pressing his claim for seniority. 13. As regards claim of the petitioner for ACP etc., the record reveals that vide order dated 09.05.2012 (Annexure P-3), benefit of 1st ACP was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.12.2006 while counting his adhoc promotion as Draftsman on 07.10.1996. However, it is undisputed that petitioner had been regularized as Draftsman only vide order dated 23.07.2009 (Annexure P-2) w.e.f. 24.10.2000 by respondent No.1. The order dated 23.07.2009 read as follows: – DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 11 of 19 “……… The promotion of Sh. Sunder Singh Draftsman, who was promoted on adhoc basis vide office order No. 13599- 4NGE-II/96 dated 07.10.1996, is hereby regularized as Draftsman with effect from 24.10.2000. ……” 14. However, while granting benefit of 1st ACP to the petitioner vide order dated 14.05.2012 (Annexure P-3) w.e.f. 01.12.2006, this fact was overlooked. Clearly, benefit of 1st ACP could have been granted to the petitioner only upon completion of 10 years service on the post. Thus, petitioner was entitled to 1st ACP only from the year 2010 onwards; whereas vide Annexure P-3, petitioner has been accorded the said benefit of the said Grade Pay w.e.f. 01.12.2006 while considering him as regular Draftsman w.e.f. 19.11.1996; whereas the same was required to be considered from 24.10.2000 as per the Assured Career Progression Rules of 2008. 15. Petitioner has retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2012. At the time of retirement, his pay for the purpose of fixation of pension was fixed notionally on the basis of the above stated erroneous calculation. Thus, petitioner continued receiving benefit of wrong pay fixation even after retirement. There can be no dispute that as per the ACP Rules 2008, benefit of 1st ACP is to be granted only after completion of 10 years satisfactory service on the post. Admittedly, petitioner was promoted as Draftsman vide order dated 23.07.2009 (Annexure P-2) w.e.f. 24.10.2000. Thus, the said benefit could have been granted to the petitioner only in the year 2010; DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 12 of 19 whereas vide Annexure P-3, the said benefit of 1st ACP has been wrongly granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.12.2006. On this mistaken premise, pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner were also wrongly fixed on the basis of wrong pay scale. In this view of the matter, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order in re-fixing pay of the petitioner. 16. Further, the respondent-State in para 6 of its written statement dated 19.03.2025 filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to the amended Writ Petition has further clarified as follows: - “That, later on Accounts Officer, Irrigation W.R. Deptt., Haryana Karnal i.e., respondent No. 3 detected that error was committed in regulating pay fixation for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits on the post of draftsman while the promotion was on adhoc basis. The said error in grant of ACP grade pays of Rs. 3300/- by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 14.05.2012 was due to considering him regular draftsman w.e.f. 19.11.1996 and further observed that adhoc promotion was only for the purpose of posting in the BBMB. The Accounts officer further directed that error committed in granting ACP may please be got rectified and after getting the ACP order amended taking into consideration regular promotion to the post of Draftsman w.e.f. 24.10.2000, the pay of the official may also be got regulated on his substantive post of tracer right from the date of adhoc promotion to the date of his regular promotion as draftsman and also in admissible scale (Annexure R-5). The petitioner was granted the benefit of 1st ACP inadvertently as explained above as well as respondent department again fell in an error in counting the benefit of Adhoc Promotion and DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 13 of 19 not regulating the pay from the date of Adhoc promotion till the date of regular promotion in the substantive post of Tracer in the respondent Department. It is further submitted that once the error was detected the respondent No.1 issued order dated 28.03.2016 to the answering respondent No.2 (Annexure P-6) to rectify the error committed in granting the benefit of ACP and fix the pay of the official and be got verified from the concerned Account Officer. Accordingly, notional pay fixation was prepared and got verified by Account Officer, Karnal vide letter no.425/E-5 dated 12.04.2016 and office orders were issued by the respondent no.2 vide letter no. 1790-96/RTI dated 3.05.2016 (Annexure P-9). Although pay of petitioner was re-fixed by granting 1st ACP at appropriate stage vide letter dated 3.05.16 (Annexure P-9), however his pay was still to be regulated on the substantive post of Tracer right from the date of Adhoc promotion to the date of regular promotion as Draftsman. Therefore, the pay of the petitioner was again refixed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 18-11-2016 (Annexure P- 10) which was also duly verified by Account officer Karnal vide letter no. 1083/E-5 dated 31.10.2016 (Annexure R-6). Thereafter, adopting the due process, the petitioner was afforded opportunity vide letter dated 18.11.2016 by respondent No. 2 (Annexure P-11) to submit his reply. The reply submitted by the petitioner was not found worth consideration in the light of Haryana Govt. rules, however on the request of the petitioner to review his case, the same remained in correspondence between the offices of the answering respondents. Ultimately after reviewing his case, the petitioner was not found entitled, therefore, the proposed action was finalized accordingly and the revised pension case was sent to Account Officer, Karnal vide letter dated DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 14 of 19 04.07.2018 by respondent no. 2. However, Accounts officer, Karnal vide letter no. 1333 dated 27.09.2018 (Annexure R-7) advised that revised pension payment order be produced in view of pay verified vide his letter No. 1083/E-5 dated 31.10.2016 and pension revision proposal be submitted accordingly (Annexure R-6). It is pertinent to mention here that the revised pay fixation orders (Annexure P-10) were issued as per verification of Accounts Officer, Karnal (Annexure R-6). As per advise of the Accounts Officer, Karnal i.e., Respondent No. 3, the calculation sheet for revised pension / family pension /commutation of pension in respect of petitioner was submitted to the Principal Accountant General (A&E) Haryana, Chandigarh for further necessary action (Annexure P-19). On receipt of recommendation of revised pension & other retrial dues the office of the Accountant General (A&E) Haryana Chandigarh issued revised pension payment order vide dated 05.11.2018 as well as commutation order accordingly for recovering the excess amount beyond the entitlement of the petitioner (Annexure P-20 &21). In view of the submissions made above, it is quite clear that impugned order dated 18.11.2016 and further order dated 05.11.2018 (Annexure P-10, P-20 & P-21) were issued after adopting the due process and as per rule and regulation of Haryana Govt. and are sustainable in the eyes of Law, therefore, does not deserve to be quashed. There is no illegality in rectifying the error committed earlier vide order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure P-10) and order dated 5.11.2018 (Annexure P-20,P-21).” 17. The petitioner has not filed any replication. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner has not disputed or controverted the above facts. DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 15 of 19 18. As regards contention of the petitioner that the impugned order (Annexure P-10) has not been passed by the competent authority viz. respondent No.1/Engineer-in-Chief; and has been passed by Superintending Engineer/respondent No.2, the said contention is also without merit as, as rightly pointed out by learned State Counsel the impugned order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure P-10) had been passed on the basis of order dated 28.03.2016 (Annexure P-6), which had been passed by respondent No.1. A perusal of impugned order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure P-10) clearly shows that it is mentioned therein that the said order has been passed “In compliance to E-I-C letter No. 581/A II/NGE-II/2015, dated 28.03.2016 the 1st ACP Granted”. Even the order dated 03.05.2016 (Annexure P-9) was passed in furtherance to the order dated 28.3.2016. A perusal of order dated 3.5.2016 passed by respondent No.2/Superintending Engineer shows that it is clearly mentioned therein that “In Compliance of Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Panchkula Letter No. 581/A II/NGE-II/2015, dated 28.03.2016, vide which it was desired to grant Ist ACP Scale to Shri Sunder Singh Draftsman (Retd.) w.e.f. 1.11.2010 on completion of 10 years regular satisfactory service. Earlier the 1st ACP Scale of Rs.93000-34800, Grade Pay Rs.3300/- was granted to Shri Sunder Singh Draftsman (Retd.) w.e.f. 1.12.2006 with counting of adhoc promotion as Draftsman inadvertently by Engineer-in Chief Haryana Irrigation and W.R. Department, Panchkula office order No. 1571/A-4/NGE-II/2012, dated 14.05.2012. Accordingly, Notional Pay DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 16 of 19 Fixation Statement of Shri Sunder Singh, Draftsman (Retd.) has been prepared and got verified by accounts Officer, Karnal vide his letter No. 425/E-5. Dated 12.04.2016. The Notional Pay Fixation Statement of Shri Sunder Singh, Draftsman (Retd.) is as under:- ………” Thus, it is misleading to say that the impugned orders have not been passed by the competent authority. It is in pursuance to the abovesaid direction of respondent No.1 that respondent No.2 had passed impugned order (Annexure P-10); thereby refixing pay of the petitioner by withdrawing benefit of adhoc promotion. Thus, no infirmity of incompetence can be found in the said order. 19. Last contention of the petitioner that recovery could not have been sought from the petitioner in terms of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rafiq Masih, is also liable to be rejected in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 3500 of 2006 titled as High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh (Annexure R-8). The relevant extract of Jagdev Singh supra is as follows: - “8. The order of the High Court has been challenged in these proceedings. From the record of the proceedings, it is evident that when the Respondent opted for the revised pay scale, he furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would be liable to refund any excess payment made to him. In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the Respondent in these proceedings, this position has been specifically admitted. Subsequently, when the rules were revised and notified on 7 May 2003 it was found that a payment in excess had been DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 17 of 19 made to the Respondent. On 18 February 2004, the excess payment was sought to be recovered in terms of the undertaking. 9. The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state. This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted. While opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the Respondent was clearly on notice of the fact that a future re-fixation or revision may warrant an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made. 10. In State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer 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. 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 employee, DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 18 of 19 would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover." (emphasis supplied). 11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.” 20. It is not disputed that in the present case, the petitioner had duly furnished an undertaking (Annexure R-10) stating as follows: - “Whereas the C.E. Irr. Deptt. Haryana has consented to grant me the sum of Rs. 9590/-per month as the amount of my pension w.e.f. 01.12.2012 and/or the sum of Rs. 522170/- as the amount of my gratuity/ death-cum-retirement gratuity, I hereby acknowledge that in accepting the said amount (s). I fully understand that the pension, gratuity/death-cum- retirement gratuity, is subject to revision and the same being found to be in excess of that to which I am entitled under the rules and I promise to raise no objection to such revision. I further promise to refund any amount paid to me in excess of that to which I may be eventually found entitled.” 21. Case of the petitioner is therefore, clearly covered by the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annexure R-8 as at the time of his retirement, petitioner has also submitted similar undertaking with the respondent-Department. It may be pointed out that pursuant thereto, Government of Haryana has also issued DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30962-2018 (O&M) 19 of 19 Instructions dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure R-9) regarding recovery of excess payment/amount made to the Govt. employees. Thus, recovery sought to be affected from the petitioner is in accordance with law. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert or dispute the above said factual and legal position. 23. In view of the above, the present Civil Writ Petition stands dismissed. 24. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. 13.07.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.07.15 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document