HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1040 of 2024 Man Singh Rawat ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Mukesh Rawat, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 06.05.2024, passed by the respondent no.3/Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Uttarakhand Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirmal Nigam, Mussorriee, Dehradun. This order records that the petitioner was to deposit Rs.1,56,807/- as the amount which he received as an excess payment. He was required to repay it, but he has not repaid it. Therefore, it was proposed to be deducted from the dues that are admissible to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. In the instant matter, the respondents were required to file counter affidavit. But, it has not been filed despite opportunities having been given. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Group C employee. He has already retired. The recovery cannot be made from him in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble 2 Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334. 5. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 admit that the petitioner is a Group C employee. They admit that in view of the judgment passed in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the petitioner being a Group C employee, recovery cannot be effected from him. 6. It is an admitted position. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing the law on the point recovery from the Government employee in case excess payment is made to him in laid down the following guidelines:- “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. 3 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Group C employee. Therefore, the recovery of Rs.1,56,807/- as proposed by Annexure 1 cannot be made. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. The writ petition is allowed. 9. The impugned order dated 06.05.2024 is quashed. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 05.08.2025 Jitendra