Recovery from retired Class III employees for long-past pay fixation errors is impermissible despite post-retirement undertakings.

The petitioner, initially appointed as a Constable and eventually promoted to Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), retired on February 28, 2025.

Following his retirement, Respondent No. 3 prepared his pension papers and identified a wrong pay fixation dating from April 1, 2006, to December 31, 2017.

Consequently, a recovery order of Rs. 1,11,032/- was issued on April 15, 2025, without prior show-cause notice or a hearing.

The State justified the recovery by citing an undertaking (Annexure R-1) signed by the petitioner at the time of retirement, consenting to the recovery of excess payments.

The petitioner challenged this recovery under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing it was impermissible for a Class III employee after retirement.

1. Whether the recovery of excess payments made due to wrong pay fixation is permissible from a retired Class III employee.

2. Whether an undertaking furnished at the time of retirement, rather than at the time of pay refixation, validates such recovery.

State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) prohibits recoveries from Class III/Group C employees and retired employees when payments were in excess for more than five years.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey (Full Bench) clarified that undertakings given at the stage of retiral dues for refixations done decades ago are forced and unenforceable unless proven voluntary.

Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack, emphasizes the necessity of observing natural justice before ordering recoveries.

The court found that the petitioner, as an ASI, belonged to Class III service.

Under the Rafiq Masih guidelines, recovery from a retired Class III employee for payments spanning over a decade (2006–2017) is legally impermissible.

Regarding the State’s reliance on the undertaking, the court noted that no such document was furnished at the time of the original pay fixation in 2006.

Relying on Jagdish Prasad Dubey, the court determined that the undertaking obtained at the time of retirement is considered "forced" and lacks the voluntary nature required to override the prohibition against recovery.

The court noted that the respondents failed to provide a show-cause notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The court allowed the petition, set aside the recovery order, and directed the respondents to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 1,11,032/- with interest at 6% per annum within 90 days.