(1) 19-WP-2576-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2576/2026 SUBHASH SAKHARAM BHALERAO VS THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI AND ORS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.N. Patre, Advocate for the Petitioner (s). Mr. O.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. S.B. Bissa, AGP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026. 1. Heard. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he retired as headmaster from the school run by the Zilla Parishad. 3. It is not disputed that he was a Class III employee. Post retirement, an undertaking was taken from him, which, according to us, is an usual undertaking that in case a liability for payment arises, the payment can be recovered. 4. The argument is that post retirement, the recovery is made, which is not permissible. The issue involved, according to the petitioner’s counsel, is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Court considered its earlier judgment in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 417, and held thus: “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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:11222-DB (2) 19-WP-2576-2026 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 to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 5. As could be seen, amongst various situations, the situation of hardship pertaining to few categories has been envisaged. The Supreme Court held that it will be impermissible in law to initiate recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). As stated earlier, it is undisputed that the petitioner retired as Class-III employee. 6. Despite such status, the respondents’ counsel has invited our attention to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal’s case, knowing fully well that the said case has been considered by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih. The counsel has also referred to the judgment in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267, where a contingency arose as to the manner in which the cases where the employee has given an undertaking at the time when his pay was initially revised, accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted. Kartikeya (3) 19-WP-2576-2026 7. This issue was considered in the light of the situation stipulated in Rafiq Masih’s case, particularly Situation No. 2, which deals with recovery initiated against retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. 8. In the present case, the undertaking was not given prior to extending the benefit of increment. As stated earlier, such undertaking has been furnished post retirement. 9. That being so, it appears that the counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has referred to the above judgments without going through the ratio of the judgment. The law laid down in the said cases would not govern the field, particularly in the light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case. 10. Put altogether, the issue involved is fully covered by the judgment in Rafiq Masih’s case. The impugned order, thus, doesn’t stand scrutiny of law. 11. The petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 06.10.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside. The amount recovered shall be returned back to the petitioner along with interest within eight weeks from today and no further recovery shall be made. 12. The petition is disposed of in terms of above. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya