[2025:RJ-JP:15060] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2148/2024 Jagmohan Sharma S/o Shri Hariprasad Sharma, Aged About 67 Years, R/o G-7, Kesgav Nagar, Sawai- Madhopur (Rajasthan) 322001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Jvvnl), Jaipur, Through Its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Deputy Secretary Pension Jaipur Discom, Old Power House Premises, Bani Park, Near Shri Ram Temple, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anupam Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ritwick Dave JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order of recovery purported excess amount of salary made to the petitioner on account of wrongful interpretation of pay fixation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no fault or misrepresentation on part of the petitioner and the pay was fixed by the respondent themselves as per their own interpretation. Therefore, at this belated stage, i.e., retirement of the petitioner, the impugned recovery order is not sustainable as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. [2025:RJ-JP:15060] (2 of 3) [CW-2148/2024] 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer, but he is not in a position to controversy the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. The issue involved in this petition 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:15060] (3 of 3) [CW-2148/2024] to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 6. Considering the submissions made at the Bar and taking note of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra), the case of the petitioner falls in the category of (ii) to (iv). In view of the above, the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 is quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /147