### Recovery of excess salary from a retired employee based on a forced undertaking is impermissible.

The petitioner, who served as a Constable and eventually retired as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) on December 31, 2025, challenged an order dated March 11, 2026 (Annexure P-1).

Upon retirement, the Treasury Department raised an objection regarding a pay fixation error occurring between January 1, 2006, and the date of retirement, leading to a recovery order of ₹2,32,387/-.

The petitioner alleged the recovery was ordered without a show-cause notice, in violation of natural justice, and was impermissible as he was a retired employee not responsible for the erroneous fixation.

The State contended the recovery was valid based on a signed undertaking (Annexure R-1) submitted by the petitioner.

1. Whether the recovery of excess payments from a retired employee and a member of the non-gazetted service is permissible under the law.

2. Whether an undertaking given by an employee regarding pay re-fixation remains enforceable post-retirement if such undertaking is deemed involuntary or forced.

The court primarily applied the principles from State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which prohibits recovery from Group 'C'/'D' employees, retired employees, or when the excess payment covers a period exceeding 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 pay fixation are often "forced" and unenforceable unless proven voluntary.

It further cited Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack (2025) regarding recovery from ministerial posts and Ravindra Kumar Joshi v. State of M.P. (2024), which places the burden on the State to prove an undertaking was voluntary.

The court found that the petitioner, having retired from the post of ASI (a ministerial/non-gazetted post), fell under the protective amber of the Rafiq Masih guidelines, which bar recovery from retired Class-III employees.

Regarding the State's reliance on the petitioner's undertaking, the court noted that the erroneous fixation dated back to 2006, and the State failed to establish that the undertaking was provided voluntarily rather than as a condition of service.

Applying the Jagdish Prasad Dubey precedent, the court determined that an undertaking obtained through unequal bargaining power is "forced" and cannot be the sole basis for recovery decades later.

Furthermore, the recovery was initiated without any show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice.

It held that recovery from a retired ASI for a long-standing pay fixation error is impermissible, regardless of a forced undertaking.

The respondents were directed to refund the amount of ₹2,32,387/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of retirement until actual payment, provided the amount had already been deducted from retiral dues.

The exercise must be completed within 90 days.