[2025:RJ-JP:26764] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12174/2017 Badri Narayan S/o Narayan Lal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o V&P Bobas, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Through Chief Managing Director, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Accounts Officer (Pension), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Assistant Engineer (O&M), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jogner, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Khanna For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Judgment 17/07/2025 1. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order dated 17.07.2017 so also the pleadings and material placed on record. 2. It appears that petitioner retired from the post of UDC on 31.05.2012 on attaining age of superannuation from the Office of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and after his retirement, vide order dated 17.07.2017 (Annx.6), a recovery of Rs.36,030/- and differential amount of excess payment of DCRG, commutation and pension was ordered, hence, the order dated 17.07.2017 has been challenged by petitioner by way of filing instant writ petition. [2025:RJ-JP:26764] (2 of 3) [CW-12174/2017] 3. It appears that such recovery was ordered to be made, on account of fault on the part of respondent in calculating the pension, after according benefit of third ACP to petitioner, whereas, as per service record, petitioner has obtained one promotion and benefit of two ACPs, hence, was not entitled for third ACP. For such reasons, the pension amount already released and paid to petitioner has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner vide order dated 17.07.2017. 4. The issue which comes up for consideration before this Court has squarely been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in celebrated and off quoted judgment of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334]. For ready reference, the relevant portion has been reproduced hereunder: “18. 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 outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 5. Petitioner falls in either of category No. (i), (iii) & (iv) and it is not the case of respondent that on account of any misrepresentation or false presentation of facts by the petitioner, [2025:RJ-JP:26764] (3 of 3) [CW-12174/2017] the benefit of third ACP was obtained by the petitioner. The amount of pension which has already been paid and released to the petitioner, cannot be allowed to be recovered in the light of judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra). Therefore, the instant writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 17.07.2017, is set aside to the extent of allowing to recover the amount of Rs.36,030 and differential amount of excess payment of DCRG, computation and pension. 6. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J GAURAV/RONAK/13