Recovery of excess pay from retired Class III employees is impermissible despite non-voluntary undertakings.

The petitioner, a retired Head Constable, challenged an order passed by respondent no. 3 seeking to recover an excess amount of ₹76,514/- paid due to the erroneous re-fixation of his salary.

The respondents argued that the recovery was justified because the petitioner had voluntarily signed an undertaking/consent form for the recovery of excess payments at the time his pension papers were prepared.

The petitioner contended that such recovery from retiral dues is impermissible under established law.

1. Whether the respondents can recover excess salary payments from a retired Class III employee based on an undertaking provided at the time of retirement.

2. Whether an undertaking given at the stage of superannuation qualifies as a "voluntary" undertaking to exempt the case from the protections laid down in Rafiq Masih.

The Court primarily applied the principles from the Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits recovery from Class III/IV employees or retired employees when excess payment was made for over five years.

It further relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of M.P. v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey (2024 (2) M.P.L.J. 198), which held that undertakings regarding pay re-fixation given decades prior cannot be enforced if obtained at the stage of retirement, as they are often "forced" rather than voluntary.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner, having retired as a Head Constable, falls under the protected category of employees against whom recovery is deemed "iniquitous or harsh".

Regarding the respondent's reliance on the petitioner's undertaking, the Court noted that the document was furnished only at the time of retirement and not when the initial pay benefits were extended.

Following the Jagdish Prasad Dubey precedent, the Court held that the State failed to prove the undertaking was voluntary; hence, it was treated as a forced undertaking obtained under the pressure of securing retiral dues.

Consequently, the protections under the Rafiq Masih guidelines remained applicable regardless of the signed consent.

It held that an undertaking provided at the time of retirement does not allow the state to recover payments made long ago.

The Court ordered the respondents to refund the recovered amount of ₹76,514/- with 6% interest per annum within three months, failing which the interest rate would increase to 12%.

The court upheld the revised pay fixation for future pension calculations.