HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7028/2024 Ramesh Chandra Menghani S/o Late Shri Lalchand Menghani, Aged About 67 Years, R/o 292/c, Sindhi Colony, Banipark, Jaipur-302016 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Managing Director. 2. The Secretary (Administration), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 3. The Account Officer (Ea), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Shed No. 1, Old Power House, Banipark, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ritwik Dave for Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/04/2025 1. By way of filing of the instant writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit the excess amount received by him during his service tenure. 2. By way of passing the order impugned, the respondents have directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,88,923/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order has been passed much after retirement of the petitioner, as the petitioner stood retired on 31.08.2017 from the post of Accounts Officer (BZ), JPD, Bharatpur. Counsel (2 of 4) [CW-7028/2024] submits that the aforesaid order has been passed without any justified reason. 4. Counsel submits that as per the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih & Ors. (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 no recovery can be effected from the retired employee after a long span of time. Hence, under these circumstances, the order impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that due to wrong fixation, excess payment was made to the petitioner. Counsel submits that this fact came into the notice of the respondents-authorities when the petitioner opted for old pension scheme and when the documents were verified. Counsel submits that the petitioner himself has submitted a letter in writing wherein, he has given his consent that the above amount be adjusted against his pensionary amount. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is estopped by his own act, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired wayback in the year 2017. This fact is also not in dispute that when the petitioner opted for the benefits of old pension scheme, the order impugned has been passed (3 of 4) [CW-7028/2024] directing him to deposit the aforesaid amount which has been wrongly received by him. 8. Now the question that remains for consideration of this Court is whether, the aforesaid amount can be recovered from the petitioner after a lapse of more than one year of retirement. The issue involved in this petitioner has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) and the following directions have been issued in para No.12 which reads as under:- “12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far (4 of 4) [CW-7028/2024] outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 9. Considering the above proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and looking to the fact that no such exercise was done by the respondents when the petitioner was in service and the respondents were keeping mum for a period of more than six years, hence, under these circumstances, the respondents cannot be allowed to recover any amount excessively paid by them due to their own fault. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the fault on the part of the respondents. 10. This Court finds no substance in the argument of the respondents that the petitioner is estopped by his application. The aforesaid application was taken by the respondents in order to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner which shows that the petitioner was forced to submit the aforesaid application. 11. In view of above, the instant writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 stands quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner forthwith without any delay within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/144