A retirement-stage undertaking cannot justify recovery of excess pay fixed decades earlier.

The petitioner, a Principal in the School Education Department, retired on 31 July 2022.

During scrutiny of his service and pension records, the authorities found an alleged excess payment of ₹82,946 arising from pay fixation dating back to January 2006 and ordered its recovery.

The petitioner challenged the recovery, alleging that it was ordered without notice or an opportunity to be heard and that he had not given an undertaking when the pay benefit was granted.

The State relied on an undertaking furnished by the petitioner at retirement.

Whether recovery of the alleged excess payment could be made from the petitioner’s retiral benefits, given that the payment arose from pay fixation in 2006 and he had retired before recovery was ordered.

Whether the undertaking furnished at retirement permitted recovery of the excess payment.

Whether recovery ordered without notice or an opportunity of hearing was sustainable.

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, (2024) 2 M.P.L.J. 198, the Full Bench held that an undertaking given when a pay benefit is granted may permit recovery, subject to the principles of hardship in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334; an undertaking given at the stage of paying retiral dues for a pay refixation made years earlier cannot be enforced.

Rafiq Masih identifies recovery from retired employees and recovery of payments made more than five years before the recovery order as ordinarily impermissible.

The Full Bench also held that an undertaking given when financial benefits are granted is not enforceable unless voluntary.

The Court additionally referred to Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack, 2025 (3) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 25, concerning recovery from retired employees where no fraud or misrepresentation was shown and no hearing was afforded.

The alleged excess payment resulted from pay fixation in January 2006, and the petitioner had retired by the time recovery was pursued.

The Court found no undertaking given when the pay benefit was conferred; the undertaking relied on by the State was given only at retirement and could not validate recovery of an amount paid long before.

Applying Rafiq Masih and the Full Bench ruling in Jagdish Prasad Dubey, the Court held that recovery was impermissible because the petitioner was retired and the payments preceded the recovery by more than five years.

The absence of notice and an opportunity to be heard further supported setting aside the recovery.

It directed the respondents to refund that amount with interest at 6% per annum from the petitioner’s retirement until payment, provided the amount had been recovered from his retiral dues.

The exercise was to be completed within 90 days after submission of a certified copy of the order.

The petition was disposed of.