W.P.(C) 1540/2026 Page 1 of 7 $~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010036852026 + W.P.(C) 1540/2026 KULDEEP SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. K.C. Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yugansh Mittal, Mr. Md. Adnan and Ms. Ayesha, Advocates. versus RAMANUJAN COLLEGE THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL .....Respondent Through: Ms. Nikita Kashyap and Ms. Bhanita Patowary, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. The Petitioners are the legal representatives of late Sh. Kuldip Singh. Their grievance is confined to the recovery of ₹33,52,013/- from his pensionary dues, representing the amount adjusted towards the salary paid to him for the period from 01st August, 2014 to 31st July, 2017, on the premise that he ought to have superannuated at the age of 62 years and that pension, rather than salary, was payable to him for the said period. The Respondent’s calculation records salary of ₹61,19,767/- for the aforesaid period and pension of ₹27,67,754/-, with the difference of ₹33,52,013/- being treated as recoverable. 2. The deceased employee was initially appointed as Director, Physical Education on 01st March, 1982. It is not disputed that, pursuant to the decisions of the University, he was redesignated as Lecturer and was thereafter promoted as Senior Lecturer, Reader and Associate Professor. Nor This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:41:38 W.P.(C) 1540/2026 Page 2 of 7 is it disputed that he continued to discharge duties in the College until 31st July, 2017. The counter affidavit itself records that he taught the discipline/application course in Physical Education up to that date and retired at the age of 65 years. 3. In fact, when the question of his pension arose, the College itself wrote to the University on 12th December, 2018. That communication recorded his redesignation as Lecturer, subsequent promotion as Reader/Associate Professor and the fact that he had taught the application course in Physical Education until 31st July, 2017. The College then requested the University to treat his case as that of a teacher, referring to the UGC clarification that the age of superannuation of an Assistant Professor/Associate Professor in Physical Education was 65 years. 4. The position changed upon the University’s communication dated 17th December, 2020. The University took the view that the deceased, being a Director, Physical Education, ought to have superannuated at 62 years on 31st July, 2014. Pension was accordingly directed to be fixed from 01st August, 2014, subject to recovery of the payment made to him for the period 01st August, 2014 to 31st July, 2017. Acting upon that communication, the Respondent adjusted ₹33,52,013/- from the pensionary dues payable to him. 5. Mr. K.C. Mittal, Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that, irrespective of the dispute concerning the applicable age of superannuation, the salary paid to the deceased for the period during which he actually rendered services could not be recovered from his retiral dues. It is submitted that the deceased neither secured his continuance in service by any misrepresentation nor concealed any material fact. The College permitted him to continue in service, assigned duties to him and paid him This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:41:38 W.P.(C) 1540/2026 Page 3 of 7 salary for the services rendered. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih,1 as also upon the Executive Council Resolution dated 09th June, 2023. 6. Ms. Nikita Kashyap, counsel for the Respondent College, does not dispute that the deceased employee rendered services during the period in question. She contends that the larger issue, namely whether the age of superannuation of a Director, Physical Education is 62 or 65 years, is pending consideration before the Division Bench in LPA No. 343/2024. She emphasizes that the recovery was effected pursuant to the University’s direction, which the College could not have independently disregarded. The College also objects to the non-joinder of the University of Delhi and the UGC. As for the Executive Council Resolution dated 09th June, 2023, it is contended that the Resolution was adopted subsequently and concerned other employees. 7. The Court need not decide in this petition whether the deceased was required to retire at 62 or 65 years. That question is left open for consideration in the pending proceedings. Even if the Respondent’s case is accepted at its highest, and it is assumed for the present purpose that the applicable age of superannuation was 62 years, a distinct question remains: can salary paid for services actually rendered between the ages of 62 and 65 be recovered after the employee’s retirement? 8. On the facts of this case, the answer must be in the negative. The payment in question was not an erroneous pay fixation or an allowance wrongly credited to the employee. It was salary paid month after month against work which the College admittedly took from him. There is no 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:41:38 W.P.(C) 1540/2026 Page 4 of 7 allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression on his part. On the contrary, the record shows that the College itself treated him as continuing in service, assigned him teaching duties and, even after his retirement, represented to the University that his case ought to be treated as that of a teacher retiring at 65. The employer cannot take the benefit of three years’ work and thereafter, upon a later view being taken of the applicable retirement age, treat the remuneration for that work as money which the employee was never entitled to retain. A subsequent determination that he ought in law to have superannuated at 62 may govern his retiral benefits; it does not by itself convert salary paid against work actually performed into an amount recoverable from him. 9. Pertinently, this distinction has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sudhir Kumar Taneja v. University of Delhi, along with Dr. Meera Sood v. University of Delhi2. The Division Bench upheld the age of superannuation of a Director, Physical Education as 62 years. Yet, while doing so, it separately considered the salary paid for services rendered beyond that age and directed that the amount should not be recovered, though consequential benefits after superannuation would be reckoned only up to the age of 62 years. 10. Indeed, the University’s E.C. Resolution dated 09th June, 2023 was passed following that judgment and adopts the same position: while fixing the superannuation age of a Director, Physical Education at 62 years, it expressly provides that salary paid for services rendered thereafter shall not be recovered, although retirement benefits would be calculated only up to 62 years. The University resolved that: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:41:38 W.P.(C) 1540/2026 Page 5 of 7 “the recovery shall not be made on account of salary given to Director Physical Education teachers for their services rendered after 62 years…” It further directed that retirement benefits would be calculated only up to the age of 62 years. 10. The present case stands on an even firmer footing. The deceased was not continued in service under any interim order, nor had he furnished any undertaking to refund the salary in the event of an adverse determination on the age of superannuation. The College itself continued to take work from him till 31st July, 2017 and paid him salary for the services so rendered. The subsequent resolution proceeds on the premise that the age of superannuation was 62, but nevertheless draws a clear distinction between retiral benefits, which are to be computed only up to that age, and salary paid for work actually performed thereafter, which is not to be recovered. The fact that the aforenoted Resolution was adopted after the recovery does not detract from its relevance; it reflects the University’s considered position that remuneration for services actually rendered does not become recoverable merely because the employee ought to have retired earlier. Nor is the principle of non-recovery confined by the language of the Resolution to the two employees whose cases occasioned it. Once the services rendered are undisputed, the salary paid for those services cannot be treated as recoverable excess merely because pensionary benefits are to be worked out by treating 62 as the age of superannuation. 11. The equitable principle recognised in Rafiq Masih leads to the same conclusion. The Supreme Court did not hold that every payment made in excess of entitlement is irrecoverable. It identified situations in which 2 2023:DHC:3537-DB This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:41:38 W.P.(C) 1540/2026 Page 6 of 7 recovery would be so iniquitous, harsh or arbitrary that the employer’s right to recover must yield. Recovery from a retired employee is one such situation, particularly when the payment was occasioned by the employer’s own decision and involved no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee. The present case stands on an even stronger footing. The amount was not a benefit passively received under an erroneous pay fixation; it was salary paid for services which the College required, accepted and utilised. To recover that salary from the employee’s retiral dues would offend the very equitable balance on which Rafiq Masih rests. 12. The College cannot avoid restitution merely because it acted on the University’s direction. Whatever the source of that direction, it was the College that deducted the amount from the deceased employee’s dues, despite having taken and benefited from his services throughout the period in question. Any dispute as to which authority must ultimately bear the financial burden lies between the College, the University and, if necessary, the funding agency; it cannot be settled by retaining salary paid for work admittedly performed. This order does not determine the rights or liabilities of those authorities inter se. The College remains at liberty to pursue such remedies against them as may be available in law. 13. The objection of non-joinder does not warrant dismissal of the petition. The Court is neither determining the applicable age of superannuation nor imposing any liability upon the University in its absence. The relief is confined to directing the Respondent College to restore the amount deducted by it from the deceased employee’s dues. The University and the UGC are therefore not necessary parties for the adjudication of this limited issue. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:41:38 W.P.(C) 1540/2026 Page 7 of 7 14. The amount claimed requires a minor correction. Although the writ petition refers to ₹33,52,018/-, both the Respondent’s computation and the calculation sheet record the amount recovered as ₹33,52,013/-. The relief must accordingly be confined to ₹33,52,013/-. 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The Respondent College shall ensure payment of ₹33,52,013/- to the Petitioners, being the amount recovered/adjusted towards the salary paid to the deceased employee for the period from 01st August, 2014 to 31st July, 2017, within eight weeks from today. For the purposes of compliance with the aforesaid direction, the Respondent College shall, forthwith, place the present order before the University of Delhi and the concerned funding authority and obtain the requisite funds for release of the aforesaid amount. The Petitioners shall not be required to pursue any proceedings or make any further representation for release of the said amount. The amount shall carry simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of its adjustment until payment. 16. It is clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion on whether the age of superannuation applicable to the deceased employee was 62 or 65 years. That question, as also any consequence which may otherwise flow from its determination in the pending proceedings, is left open. The present decision is confined to the recovery of salary for services actually rendered between 01st August, 2014 and 31st July, 2017. 17. The petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 nk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:41:38