Post-retirement recovery of excess pay is impermissible where undertaking was obtained forcefully or at retirement.

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub Inspector, retired from service

Following his retirement, the respondents issued impugned orders for the recovery of Rs. 75,323/- from his retiral dues, citing an excess payment made due to an erroneous re-fixation of his pay decades earlier

The respondents justified the recovery on the grounds that the petitioner had provided a voluntary undertaking for recovery at the time his pension papers were prepared

The petitioner challenged this recovery, asserting it was impermissible under settled law regarding retired Class III employees

1. Whether an undertaking for recovery given by an employee at the time of retirement/preparation of pension papers is legally enforceable to recover excess payments made years prior

2. Whether the recovery of excess pay from a retired Class III employee is permissible in light of the guidelines established by the Supreme Court and the High Court

State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015), which prohibits recovery from Class III/IV employees, retired employees, or when the excess payment was made over five years prior to the recovery order

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey (2024), which held that undertakings given at the stage of retirement regarding pay re-fixation done decades ago are unenforceable and "forced"

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramrao Bhimte (W.A. No. 1657/2025), affirming that recovery from retired employees remains impermissible

The court observed that the petitioner occupied a post (Assistant Sub Inspector) analogous to Class III/Group C service, making the Rafiq Masih protections applicable

The Bench found that the undertaking was furnished only after retirement during the pension process, rather than at the time the financial benefit was originally extended

Following the Jagdish Prasad Dubey precedent, the court deemed such an undertaking "forceful" and legally ineffective because the State failed to prove it was given voluntarily

Consequently, since the error occurred "long back" and the recovery was initiated against a retired employee, the state's right to recover was outweighed by the equitable hardship caused to the petitioner

The petition was allowed, and the recovery orders were set aside. The court ordered the respondents to refund any recovered amount with 6% interest per annum within three months; failure to comply would result in a 12% interest rate