[2025:RJ-JP:27107] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22521/2018 Shri Vishambar Dayal Sharma S/o Late Shri Kalua Ram Sharma, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Chandpura, Tehsil Basedi, District Dholpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Director, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioners Welfare, Rajasthan. 2. The Treasurer, Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Dholpur, Rajasthan. 3. The Deputy Treasurer, Department Of Treasuries And Accounts, Basedi, Dholpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Sharma for Mr. Bal Ram Vashisth For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 21/07/2025 1. Instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner, questioning the order dated 06.02.2018 (Annx.1), to the extent of directing recovery of an amount of Rs.09,75,389/- from the future revised pension of petitioner. 2. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order dated 06.02.2018 so also the material placed on record. 3. From the pleadings of the parties and impugned order, it is explicit that petitioner has retired w.e.f. 31.08.2006 and while [2025:RJ-JP:27107] (2 of 3) [CW-22521/2018] revising his pension as per 6th Pay Commission, same was revised erroneously and for the period i.e. 01.09.2006 to 30.09.2017, the excess amount to the tune of Rs.09,75,389/- was released to petitioner. When the respondents realized such clerical mistake in calculation, the pension of petitioner was revised so also the excess amount of Rs.09,75,389/-, already paid to petitioner, sought to be recovered by issuing the order dated 06.02.2018 (Annx.1). 4. In the instant writ petition, counsel for petitioner, having instruction from the petitioner, confined his prayer to the extent of recovery of the excess amount from the revised/ deduced future pension of petitioner and reliance has been placed on the celebrated and off-quoted judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in case 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.” [2025:RJ-JP:27107] (3 of 3) [CW-22521/2018] 5. Counsel for petitioner further submits that the ratio decidendi as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra), has further been reiterated recently in case of Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2024 Supreme(SC) 649] and Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors. Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors. [AIR 2024 SC 3950]. 6. Counsel for respondents, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, does not dispute that the excess payment was made on account of miscalculation/ clerical mistake of the respondents. There is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. 7. In view of above, the issue raised in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra). Therefore, the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.02.2018, is set aside, to the extent of allowing to recover the amount of Rs.09,75,389/- from the future pension of petitioner. If any amount out of Rs.09,75,389/- has already been recovered, same be refunded/ released to the petitioner along with future monthly pension, forthwith. 8. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/32