Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited And Others vs Darshan Singh Dardi And Another

CWP-36219-2026
(O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
134 CWP-36219-2026 (O & M)
Date of Decision 03.11.2026
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS
..Petitioners
Versus
DARSHAN SINGH DARDI AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV
Present Mr. Anish Babbar, Advocate for the petitioners.
*
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the impugned order
dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Tribunal’), by which, the recovery effected from the retiral benefits of the
respondents, consequent upon the grant of voluntary retirement, has been held
to be impermissible and the amount already recovered has been directed to be
refunded.
2. Facts of the case are that the pay of respondent No. 1 was refixed
on lower side w.e.f. 24.12.2002 in terms of letter dated 25.12.2019 i.e. just
month prior to the voluntarily retirement dated 31.01.2020.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that
an undertaking had been furnished by the respondent No. 1 at the time of his
retirement, in terms of which any excess payment made to him was liable to be
RIYA
2026.11.05 17:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36219-2026
(O & M) 2
recovered. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further
submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab
and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015(1) S.C.T., 195 would
not be applicable to the facts of the present case and also keeping in view of
the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court of
Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, 2016 (4) SCT 286 .
Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8329-8336 of 2020, decided on
23.09.2020, titled as Dr. M.K. Ravi Verma etc. v. National Institute of
Technology etc, 2026 INSC 1080.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through
case file with his able assistance.
5. It may be noticed that the benefit in question which was withdrawn
so as to made recovery of the excess amount was extended to the respondent
No. 1 in the year 2002, on the ground that at the said time his pay was
wrongly fixed. The said benefit continued to be extended to the respondent
No.1 was availed by respondent No. 1 till the date of his retirement. It was only
at the time of his retirement that the petitioners found the aforesaid benefit
given to the respondent No. 1 was to be inadmissible and the same were
unilaterally withdrawn so as to re-fix his pay, without even issuing a show-
cause notice to him. Not only, the benefit extended was withdrawn, but the
excess amount allegedly paid on account of such fixation was also sought to be
recovered from his retiral benefits, which action was challenged by respondent
No. 1 before the Tribunal.
6. Vide impugned order dated 16.07.2025, the Tribunal issued a
RIYA
2026.11.05 17:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36219-2026
(O & M) 3
direction to refund the excess amount so recovered from the respondent No. 1,
primarily on the ground that recovery of excess payments from an employee
who has already retired or is near of the retirement is impermissible in law,
while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Rafiq Masih (White Washer)’s
case (supra) .
7. Further, it may be noticed that it is a settled principle of law that
where a benefit has been extended to an employee and same was continued to
be availed by him/her during service tenure, any subsequent decision to
withdraw such benefit by re-fixing pay, which has the effect of adversely
affecting his/her financial emoluments, cannot be taken without affording
him/her an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, it is a conceded position
that no notice was issued to the respondent No. 1 before his pay was
unilaterally refixed, resulting in a reduction of his emoluments and
consequential recovery of the amount already paid to him. Thus, even the
action of refixing the pay of the respondent No. 1 and withdrawing the benefit,
without affording him an opportunity of hearing, cannot be sustained as per the
judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2265 of
2011 titled as titled as Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd through its
Secretary/Mahaprandhak and another vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and
others, 2016(12) SCC 204 , decided on 17.05.2016.
The relevant paragraph of the Chamoli's case (supra) is as
under:-
“19. The compliance of natural justice in domestic/disciplinary
inquiry is necessary has long been established. This Court has held
that even there are no specific statutory rule requiring observance
RIYA
2026.11.05 17:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36219-2026
(O & M) 4
of natural justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary.
Certain ingredients have been held to be constituting integral part
of holding of an inquiry. The Apex Court in Sur Enamel and
Stamping Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in (1964) 3
SCR 616 has laid down following:-
“... An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless,
(i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of
the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are examined –
ordinarily in the presence of the employee – in respect of the
charges, (iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross-
examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine
witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any
relevant matter, and (v) the inquiry officer records his findings with
reasons for the same in his report.”
8. Further , as per the settled principle of law as settled by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while passing the judgment in Civil Appeal
No. 9417 of 2019 titled as M/s Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and another
vs. State of U.P. and another 2019 (12) JT 283 , decided on 13.12.2019 wherein
it has been held that where any order passed by the authority concerned causes
prejudice to an employee, particularly involving financial liability, the
employee must be afforded an opportunity of hearing and no order causing
prejudice to an employee can be passed by an employer unilaterally. The
relevant para of Daffodills Pharmaceuticals's case (supra) is as under:-
“15. In the present case, even if one assumes that Surender
RIYA
2026.11.05 17:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36219-2026
(O & M) 5
Chaudhary, the accused in the pending criminal case was involved
and had sought to indulge in objectionable activities, that ipso
facto could not have resulted in unilateral action of the kind which
the State resorted to- against Daffodils, which was never granted
any opportunity of hearing or a chance to represent against the
impugned order. If there is one constant lodestar that lights the
judicial horizon in this country, it is this: that no one can be
inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum
opportunity of hearing, and prior intimation of such a move. This
principle is too well entrenched in the legal ethos of this country to
be ignored, as the state did, in this case.
16. The High Court, in the opinion of this court, fell into error in
holding that in matters of award of public contracts, the scope of
inquiry in judicial review is limited. Granted, such jurisdiction is
extremely circumscribed; no doubt the court had refused to grant
relief to Daffodils against its plea of wrongful rejection of its
tender. However, what the impugned judgment clearly overlooks is
that the action of the state, not to procure indefinitely, on an
assumption of complicity by Daffodils, was in flagrant violation of
principles of natural justice.”
9. Apart from this, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010 titled as Thomas Daniel versus State
of Kerala and others, decided on 02.05.2022 , it has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India where there is no misrepresentation or fraud on behalf
of an employee so as to receive emoluments beyond his/her entitlement, the
recovery cannot be done from employee concerned. The relevant paragraph of
RIYA
2026.11.05 17:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36219-2026
(O & M) 6
the said judgment is as under:-
“(9) This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that
if the excess amount was not paid on account of any
misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess
payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle
for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular
interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be
erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are
not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not
because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising
judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the
hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court
has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an
employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess
of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is
detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the
matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on
the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for
recovery of amount paid in excess.”
10. Further, an argument has been raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that an undertaking was given by the respondent and therefore
the recovery can be done in terms of the judgments passed in Jagdev Singh’s
case (Supra) as well as Dr. M.K. Ravi Verma’s case (supra).
11. It may be noticed that the undertaking relied upon by the
petitioners was furnished by the respondent No. 1 at the time of his retirement,
which is clear from the wording of the undertaking itself though such
undertaking bears no date.
12. Once no undertaking had been furnished by the respondent No. 1
at the time when the benefit in question was extended to him in the year 2002,
RIYA
2026.11.05 17:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-36219-2026
(O & M) 7
to the effect that any excess payment arising out of wrong fixation of pay would
be liable to be recovered. Such undertaking given at the time of retirement will
only be operative in case the pensionary benefits are wrongly calculated and
given, and will not relate to any service benefit wrongly given sought to be
recovered at the time of retirement. Hence, the argument raised before this
Court that the undertaking existed which entitled, the recovery by unilaterally
refixing the salary of the respondent is incorrect. The judgments in Jagdev
Singh’s case (supra) and M.K. Ravi’s case (supra) do not support the claim
keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
13. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
present case, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
15. Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed
of
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE

( MINDERJEET YADAV )
JUDGE
03.11.2026
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
RIYA
2026.11.05 17:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document