2026:JHHC:3600-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.201 of 2025 ----- 1. Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited through its Managing Director, officiating at Engineering Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited, officiating at Engineering Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The General Manager, Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited, officiating at Engineering Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Deputy General Manager, Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited, officiating at Engineering Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5. The Senior Manager, (F & A), Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited, officiating at Engineering Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. .......... Appellants. -Versus- Shakuntala Sharma, W/o. Late Raghav Sharma, resident of Flat No.101, Om Vihar Apartment, Near Gas Godown, Amethia Nagar, P.O. & P. S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. .......... Respondent. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. SC-I For the Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate ----- Order No.07 Date: 10.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Senior Advocate who appears along with Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 5th July, 2024 allowing the respondent’s W.P.(S) No.220 of 2024 and quashing the recovery notice in an amount of Rs.11,09,468/- allegedly towards excess family pension received by the respondent. 2026:JHHC:3600-DB 2 3. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Sr. Advocate for the appellants submitted that consequent upon the demise of the respondent’s husband (Late Raghav Sharma), Assistant Executive Engineer, PTPS, in harness, in terms of the then existing scheme, the respondent was sanctioned and paid full pension. He submitted that in terms of the scheme, this full pension was payable only for ten years. After the expiry of ten years, the respondent would be entitled to a normal family pension corresponding to approximately about 40% of the full pension amount. He submitted that in this case, post 2018, perhaps on account of inadvertence or oversight, the respondent continued to be paid the full pension until April 2023. He pointed out that in addition to a full family pension, the respondent’s daughter was also given a compassionate appointment. 4. Mr Rajiv Ranjan submitted that, upon realisation in 2023, the excess payments were immediately stopped and a notice was issued for the recovery of the excess amount paid to the respondent for the years 2018-2023, amounting to Rs. 11,09,468/-. He submitted that there was no dispute about the excess payments. He relied on the indemnity bond furnished by the respondent, at pages 95 to 97 of the paper book and submitted that the same contained an undertaking by the respondent that she would take the responsibility of settling all/any claims. He submitted that the respondent was now bound by the undertaking and could not resist the recovery of the excess payments. He also pointed out that the appellants were not 2026:JHHC:3600-DB 3 recovering the entire excess payment in a lump sum, but by way of easy instalments of Rs. 4,000/- per month. 5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015)4 SCC 334, since this decision was later explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016)14 SCC 267. He submitted that in terms of the latter decision, if the officer to whom payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded, then, such officer, was bound by such undertaking and could not resist the recovery by relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra). 6. Mr Prabhat Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, defended the impugned order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that this was not a case of payments made in connection with any revised pay scales. He submitted that there was no undertaking furnished by the respondent, and the indemnity bond was only to indemnify the respondent against any claims from any other heirs/descendants subsequently. 7. Mr Prabhat Singh submitted that no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged against the respondent. Therefore, he submitted that it would be completely harsh and inequitable to sustain any recoveries against the respondent-widow. He, therefore, urged the dismissal of this appeal. 2026:JHHC:3600-DB 4 8. Rival contentions now fall for our determination. 9. In this case, the issue is whether the recovery of Rs.11,09,468/- towards excess family pension paid to the respondent for the period 2018-2023 should be allowed. 10. Admittedly, there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the respondent. Even the appellants submitted that the excess payment for about five years was due to inadvertence or oversight by the appellant’s employee. There is no record of any action against the appellant’s employee responsible for this inadvertence or oversight. 11. Further, the error has been corrected post-2023, and the respondent is receiving a family pension of approximately 40% of the full pension. 12. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., (2012)8 SCC 417 and in Rafiq Masih (Supra), it is held that recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order or recovery is issued, would be impermissible in law. Further, this decision also holds that in any other case, where the Court concludes that the recovery is made from the employee, it would be iniquitous, harsh or arbitrary to such an extent as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover. 13. In this case, we are not directly concerned with the appellant’s employee. The employee, who was the husband of the respondent, died in harness. Under the scheme, the respondent 2026:JHHC:3600-DB 5 was paid the family pension. Therefore, the position of the widow and her children must be considered when balancing the equities in a situation of this nature. This is more so because there is no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation being practised by the respondent-widow. 14. In Jagdev Singh (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of Rafiq Masih (Supra) explained that the proposition that recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retired within one year, of the order of recovery will not apply in case of an officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The Officer furnished an undertaking upon opting for the revised pay scale and, therefore, was bound by it. 15. In the present case, we are not concerned with any revision of pay scales. But assuming that this distinction is irrelevant, this is also not a case where the respondent has furnished any undertaking comparable to that which was furnished by the officer in the case of Jagdev Singh (Supra). 16. Here, the respondent has merely furnished an indemnity bond, the operative portion of which reads as follows:- “AND WHEREAS the obligor is entitled for the best interest and for the benefit of the said minors of deceased employee of the Board and responsible for the money for which payment to be truly and faithfully made resultant after death of deceased employee of the Board on account of terminal benefit. NOW THIS CONDITION OF ABOVE INDEMNI BOND or obligation is such that in the event of any claim being at any time 2026:JHHC:3600-DB 6 hereafter made to the proceeds of the said accounts by any other person or persons whomsoever if, take the responsibility of settling all/any claim referred against Board (Patratu Thermal Power Station) by the any of heir/descendant subsequently and the obligor shall forthwith pay or cause to be paid to the Board the entire amount with an interest applicable and further pay for all losses, damages costs and expenses which the Board reasonably incur or suffer.” 17. The above indemnity bond can hardly be regarded as an undertaking comparable to the undertaking considered in the case of Jagdev Singh (Supra). This undertaking is a routine undertaking to indemnify the employer should any claim be raised by any other legal heirs/descendants subsequently. This indemnity bond will not apply to the employer's payment of family pension, even if excess payments were made due to inadvertence not attributable to any fraud or misrepresentation by the beneficiary. Therefore, based upon the above indemnity bond or the undertaking contained therein, the principle in Jagdev Singh (Supra) cannot be applied. 18. This is a case where recovery is sought from the widow of the employee who died in harness. This is also a case in which recovery is sought for a period exceeding five years prior to the issuance of the order of recovery. This is also a case where it would be iniquitous and harsh to sustain the recovery. The equitable considerations would far outweigh the equitable balance of the appellants’ employer’s right to recover. 2026:JHHC:3600-DB 7 19. For all the above reasons, we see no good grounds to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the direction for quashing the recovery notice. 20. As a consequence, we dismiss this appeal without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 10th February, 2026 Sanjay/Rahul N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 12.02.2026