Recovery of excess pay from retired Class III employees is impermissible in the absence of valid undertaking.

The petitioner is the wife of a deceased government employee who retired from the post of Steno-typist

Following his retirement, the respondents issued a Pension Payment Order (PPO) directing the recovery of ₹1,84,375/- on the grounds of excess payments resulting from an erroneous salary fixation

The respondents justified the recovery by claiming that the employee had provided consent for the recovery of excess payments during the preparation of his pension papers

The petitioner challenged the recovery, seeking a refund with interest

1. Whether the respondents are entitled to recover excess payments made due to erroneous salary fixation from a retired Class-III employee or their legal heir?

2. Whether an undertaking/consent given at the time of retirement regarding the recovery of past excess payments is legally enforceable?

The court primarily applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which prohibits recoveries from Class-III/IV employees or retired employees where the recovery would be "iniquitous or harsh"

The court relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of M.P. v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, which held that undertakings given at the stage of paying retiral dues for decades-old errors are "forced undertakings" and unenforceable

The court followed the Division Bench decision in State of M.P. v. Ramrao Bhimte, affirming that recovery after retirement for long-standing pay errors is impermissible

The court found that the petitioner’s husband was a Steno-typist (Class-III cadre) and the recovery was initiated post-retirement

Applying the Rafiq Masih guidelines, the court noted that recovery from retired Class-III employees is legally impermissible, especially when the excess payment resulted from employer error and not employee misrepresentation

Regarding the State’s defense of a signed consent form, the court applied the Jagdish Prasad Dubey precedent, reasoning that an undertaking obtained at the time of retirement regarding salary fixations done years prior is considered "forced" and lacks voluntary legal character

Consequently, the court determined that the petitioner stood on the same footing as the successful litigants in the Ramrao Bhimte case

It held that while the pay fixation itself is upheld, the recovery of excess amounts from retiral dues is impermissible

The respondents were directed to refund any recovered amount with 6% per annum interest within three months, failing which the interest rate would increase to 12% per annum

The petition was disposed of accordingly