HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 548 of 2022 (S/S) Jeevan Lal ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned recovery order dated 30.05.2016 issued by Deputy Education Officer, Udham Singh Nagar whereby recovery of Rs. 96,666/- has been deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner without giving an opportunity of being heard. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to refund the amount wrongly recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner and also upgraded the pension of the petitioner. (iii) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of writ petition to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Assistant Teacher and retired on 31.03.2016, but by the order dated 2 30.05.2016, a recovery of Rs. 96,666/- was issued against him. It is challenged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from services on 31.03.2016; he was paid pension regularly, but suddenly, Rs. 96,666/- were recovered from his pension, which is against law; he did not make any misrepresentation or did not commit any fraud on the respondent-authorities while receiving the money on service. He would refer to the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles on the subject as follows:- “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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the 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. Learned State Counsel would submit that the recovery was made as per Government Orders, but to a specific query of the 3 Court as to whether in view of the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), such recovery be made, he would submit that as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the recovery cannot be made. 6. The petition’s case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). The excess recovery cannot be made from him. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The writ petition is allowed. The recovery order dated 30.05.2016, by which the recovery of Rs. 96,666/- was made from the pension of the petitioner, is quashed. The amount so recovered from the petitioner be refunded to him. The petitioner shall also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent on this amount. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 13.05.2025 Ravi Bisht