Rafiq Masih protection does not bar recovery of advances or illegally withdrawn public funds.

The appellant’s husband, Birendra Kumar, was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary in 1996 and died in harness in a road accident on 7 June 2016 while posted under Gidhaur Block, Jamui.

Following his death, the appellant sought payment of his death-cum-retiral benefits, and the pension payment order and gratuity payment order were issued on 31 January 2019.

The authorities sought recovery of ₹3,66,450, stated to be the balance of an advance of ₹4,38,450 after adjustment of ₹72,000 recovered from the deceased employee’s salary, and also claimed ₹4,05,917 allegedly withdrawn as Panchayat funds/advance relating to royalty and sales-tax deductions under the BRGF project.

The appellant contended that the amounts had been recovered or deposited without notice and that her son had deposited ₹4,05,917 under pressure connected with compassionate appointment.

She challenged the recovery letters dated 3 April 2018 and 16 March 2019 before the learned Single Judge, seeking refund of ₹7,72,367 with interest.

The writ petition was disposed of on 12 December 2022, with liberty to submit an exhaustive representation regarding any further deductions, to be considered in light of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.

Whether recovery of ₹7,72,367 from the deceased employee’s death-cum-retiral benefits was impermissible under the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, particularly when no prior notice was issued to the appellant?

Whether the amounts sought to be recovered constituted excess salary paid without fault or misrepresentation, or instead represented advances and Panchayat/project funds allegedly taken or withdrawn by the deceased employee and therefore recoverable?

Whether the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12 December 2022 suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference in appeal?

The Court considered the principles in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which restrict recovery of excess payments in specified situations, particularly where the employee is not at fault; however, those principles do not ordinarily protect recovery of amounts that were knowingly received, advanced, misappropriated, or otherwise legitimately due to the employer.

The Court also referred to Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, relied upon by the appellant in challenging recovery.

It applied the principle from Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709, that relief against recovery may be denied where the employee knew that the payment was in excess of entitlement or where the error was detected and corrected within a short period.

The Court further relied on High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 26, in support of the enforceability of recovery in appropriate circumstances.

The Court distinguished the present case from Rafiq Masih because the authorities were not seeking recovery of excess salary or allowances paid to the deceased employee without his fault or misrepresentation.

According to the undisputed material, the deceased had taken an advance of ₹4,38,450, against which only ₹72,000 had been recovered, leaving ₹3,66,450 payable; he had also allegedly withdrawn ₹4,05,917 relating to royalty and sales-tax deductions under the BRGF project.

The appellant did not specifically contradict the factual assertion that these sums had been taken or withdrawn by her husband, nor did she establish that the recovery was illegitimate.

The Court treated the son’s deposit of ₹4,05,917 into the respondents’ account as further evidence that the family was aware of the underlying liability, although the appellant alleged that the deposit was made under pressure.

Since the amounts represented advances and project/Panchayat funds rather than innocent overpayment of salary, the protective rule against recovery of excess payments was held inapplicable.

It held that the recovery related to advances and allegedly withdrawn Panchayat/project funds, not excess salary paid without fault, and was therefore not barred by Rafiq Masih.

Finding no infirmity in the learned Single Judge’s order dated 12 December 2022, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.

No refund of ₹7,72,367 or interest was directed.