Grounds not pleaded in return or argued before Single Judge cannot be raised in appeal.

The respondent, a retired employee, filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 13544/2023) challenging a recovery of ₹1,45,737/- deducted from his retiral dues

The State (appellants) filed a reply stating the recovery was based on objections raised by the Treasury Office regarding excess payments

The learned Single Judge, noting that the recovery was attemptd after retirement, set aside the recovery based on established judicial precedents

The State filed this Writ Appeal, contending for the first time that the recovery was actually due to the non-implementation of punishment orders from 1986 and 1998

1. Whether the State can challenge a Single Judge’s order based on factual grounds (non-implementation of punishment) that were neither pleaded in the original return nor argued during the initial hearing

2. Whether the recovery of excess payments from a retired employee is permissible under the law

The Court applied the principle established by the Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits the recovery of excess payments from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year, particularly when the payment was not due to any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee

The Court also adhered to the procedural principle that an appellate court will not entertain new factual pleas that were not raised before the lower court or supported by an affidavit of the arguing counsel

The Court found that the State's current justification—that the recovery was a result of non-implemented punishment orders—was never mentioned in their original reply to the writ petition

The Government Advocate admitted that this specific "punishment" aspect was neither pleaded nor argued before the Single Judge

The Court observed that the Officers-in-Charge (OIC) and Government Advocate were either negligent or acted in collusion with the respondent

Since there was no affidavit from the arguing counsel claiming that the Single Judge had ignored argued points, the Court refused to entertain the new grounds

Applying Rafiq Masih, the Court held that the recovery after retirement remained impermissible based on the record presented to the Single Judge

The Court held that new factual arguments regarding the non-implementation of punishment cannot be raised at the appellate stage if they were omitted in the initial pleadings

The Court further directed the State Government to address the negligence of its officials/counsel [para. 19]. Relief was denied to the appellants