2025:UHC:5619-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSB/96/2016 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Sushil Vashistha, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents nos. 2 & 3. 3. Petitioner retired as Superintending Engineer from State Public Works Department on 31.07.2009. After his retirement, he was appointed as Officer on Special Duty till 28.02.2010 and thereafter vide order dated 25.03.2010 his engagement as Officer on Special Duty, was extended upto 28.02.2011. While serving as Officer on Special Duty, petitioner was paid full salary, however, petitioner managed to realise salary even after 28.02.2011 till 30.06.2011. When this matter came to the knowledge of the authorities, then an order was issued asking the petitioner to refund the salary, which he received between March to June, 2011. Thus, feeling aggrieved petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 11 of 2012, seeking the following reliefs:- “A. Issue order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 23.9.2011 and Noting dated 14.10.2011 of respondent No. 1 and 2 by which they have denied the salary to the petitioner and also directed to refund the salary w.e.f. 28.2.2011 to 30.06.2011 along with its effect and operation also in league with all consequential proceedings based on the impugned orders after calling entire record from the respondents declaring the same against the rules and law. B. Issue order or direction to the respondent no. 1 to pay the salary for the period of w.e.f. 7.11 to 12.09.11 including arrears of D.A. w.e.f. 01.01.2011 to 12.09.2011 had it been the impugned order was never in existence. 2025:UHC:5619-DB C. Issue order or direction to the respondents to pay compensation, which is in tune of Rs.2,00,000 along with 18% interest thereof or such amount, which the court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition by a detailed judgment dated 30.10.2015, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Paragraph nos. 29 & 30 of the said judgment is reproduced below:- 29. Now the question arises as to whether the said amount can be recovered from the petitioner or not. As we have pointed out that the petitioner should not have drawn the salary; it was also a mistake on the part of the petitioner. If the over payment and the question of recovery arises from a senior officer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid certain guidelines recently. In the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih & Others 2015 (2) SCC(L&S) 33 in para 18 Hon'ble Court has held as under:- “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.” 30. The petitioner's case falls in the category-3 of such guidelines. The salary has been paid to the petitioner from March to June and the recovery of the said amount was sent on 23.9.2011, thus it is well within time; the petitioner has retired as Superintending Engineer and he was a very senior officer. Under these circumstances recovery of the amount is justified. In view of the above the petition fails and petition is liable to be dismissed.” 5. Petitioner relied upon the law declared by Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & others 2025:UHC:5619-DB v. Rafiq Masih & others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, for contending that excess payment, if any made to the petitioner, cannot be recovered. 6. Learned Tribunal, however, held that since petitioner was serving on a Group-A post and was holding a very senior position in State Public Works Department, therefore, he do not fall in any of the category of employees, as mentioned in the case of State of Punjab & others v. Rafiq Masih & others (supra). 7. We concur with the reasoning given by learned Tribunal. Thus, there is no scope for interference. 8. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 02.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f4 87df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819 DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.09 10:10:31 +05'30'