Recovery from Retired Class III Employees for Erroneous Pay Fixation Lacking Voluntary Undertaking is Impermissible

The original petitioner was appointed as a Constable in 1979 and retired as a Head Constable (Class III post) on June 30, 2016

Post-retirement, during the audit of his service book by the Treasury and Pension Department, an objection was raised regarding erroneous pay fixation dating back to January 1, 1996

Consequently, an order (Annexure P-1) was issued to recover excess payments totaling ₹4,82,019/- without prior notice or a hearing

The State contended that the recovery was valid based on a consent/undertaking (Annexure R-2) signed by the petitioner during the preparation of his pension papers

Following the petitioner's death, his legal representatives (LRs) pursued the matter

1. Whether recovery of excess pay can be initiated against a Class III employee after their retirement

2. Whether an undertaking submitted at the time of retirement/pension processing can validate the recovery of benefits extended decades prior

The court applied the principles established in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015), which prohibits recovery from Class III/IV employees or retired employees when the excess payment was made for over five years

It relied on the Full Bench decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey (2024), which held that undertakings given at the stage of retirement for pay refixations done decades ago are unenforceable and "forced"

Furthermore, it cited Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack (2025) regarding the necessity of principles of natural justice (opportunity of hearing) before recovery

and Central Inland Water Transport Corp. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly regarding the invalidity of involuntary undertakings

The court reasoned that the petitioner was a Class III employee, a category protected from recovery under the Rafiq Masih guidelines

The alleged wrong pay fixation occurred in 1996, and the recovery was initiated twenty years later in 2016, far exceeding the five-year limit established by the Supreme Court

Regarding the State's reliance on the undertaking (Annexure R-2), the court observed that no undertaking was furnished by the petitioner at the time the benefit was originally granted in 1996; the document was only signed at the time of retirement

Following the Jagdish Prasad Dubey precedent, the court deemed this a "forced undertaking" rather than a voluntary one, rendering it legally unenforceable

Additionally, the court found the recovery process flawed as it bypassed the principles of natural justice by failing to provide a show-cause notice

The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to refund the recovered amount of ₹4,82,019/- to the petitioner's legal representatives. The State was ordered to pay interest at 6% per annum from the date of retirement until the actual payment, with the exercise to be completed within 90 days