206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3721-2016 Date of Decision: January 07, 2025 Harmail Singh …Pe00oner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Dharam Vir Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate for the pe!!oner. Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S. Khosla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chirag Suri, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3-PUDA. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) Pe!!oner re!red from the post of Legal Advisor in the office of respondent Nos.2 and 3 – PUDA on 31.03.2015. By way of the impugned order dated 01.07.2015(Annexure P-1), an amount of 2,16,112/- has been deducted from his re!ral benefits. The simple prayer made by learned Sr. counsel for the pe!!oner is that the deduc!on as made by respondent Nos.2 and 3 is against the legal posi!on se;led by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Punjab and others etc. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.”, 2015(4) SCC 334. 2. As per the reply filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the excess payment was made to the pe!!oner inadvertently. 3. Heard. 4. In Rafiq Masih’s case (supra), it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- “12. It is not possible to postulate all situaons of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situaons, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 16:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CWP-3721-2016 - 2 - 2025:PHHC:000465 (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group C and Group D' service). (ii) Recovery from rered employees, or employees who are due to rere 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 dues of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have righ-ully 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. It is thus clear that once the employee has been re!red, recovery of excess amount made under mistake, could not have been effected out of his re!ral benefits. 6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not refute the aforesaid legal posi!on. 7. In view of the above, present pe!!on is hereby accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The amount as recovered from the pe!!oner be refunded to him within a period of 01 month from the date of receipt of this order. In case, the same is not refunded within 01 month, then the same shall be refunded alonwith interest @ 9% per annum to be effec!ve aFer expiry of 01 month. January 07, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No Sarita Rani 2025.01.07 16:45 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order