Recovery from retired Class IV employees for excess payment without voluntary undertaking is impermissible in law.

The petitioner, a Class-IV employee (Caretaker) in the respondent department, retired on December 31, 2019

Upon retirement, the department conducted a pay fixation audit and determined that the petitioner had received an excess payment of ₹12,613/- due to an erroneous salary fixation between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014

Consequently, the respondents issued recovery notices (Annexure P/1 and P/2) to deduct this amount from the petitioner’s retiral dues without prior show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing

The petitioner challenged these notices under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that recovery from a retired Class-IV employee is legally impermissible

1. Whether the recovery of excess payments made due to erroneous pay fixation is permissible from a retired Class-IV employee in the absence of an undertaking provided at the time of such fixation?

2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the issuance of recovery orders without a show-cause notice or hearing?

State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015), which prohibits recovery from Class-III and Class-IV employees or retired employees when the payment was not due to fraud by the employee

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey (2024), which held that recovery based on "forced" undertakings is unenforceable and that time limits set in Rafiq Masih must be followed

Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack (2025) regarding the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing before directing recovery

The Court observed that the petitioner was a Class-IV employee and the alleged excess payment resulted from a mistake by the department in 2013, not from any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner

The Court noted that no specific undertaking was furnished by the petitioner at the time of the pay fixation in 2013

Relying on the Jagdish Prasad Dubey precedent, the Court reasoned that even if an undertaking existed, it would be considered "forced" and unenforceable unless proven voluntary

Furthermore, the Court found the recovery procedurally flawed as it was initiated after retirement without any show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice and the specific prohibitions against recovering dues from retired Class-IV staff as established in Rafiq Masih

It quashed the impugned notices and directed the respondents to refund the recovered amount of ₹12,613/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of retirement until the actual date of payment