Statutory undertaking permits recovery of excess pay from gratuity, notwithstanding an employee's Class IV status.

The petitioner is the widow of Sanjay Bhagirath Chandode, a Class IV employee (Peon) who died in service on March 11, 2022

Following his death, the Accountant General sanctioned a family pension and death gratuity of ₹8,71,750/-

Respondent No. 3 initiated a recovery of ₹3,11,194/- from the gratuity amount, citing excess payments made between 2006 and 2022 due to erroneous pay fixation

The petitioner challenged this recovery, relying on the hardship caused to a widow and the protected status of Class IV employees

The State defended the action by producing statutory undertakings signed by the deceased employee in 2009 and 2019, agreeing to the recovery of any excess payments resulting from pay revisions

1. Whether the recovery of excess payments from the death gratuity of a Class IV employee is permissible when the employee had furnished statutory undertakings to refund such amounts

2. Whether the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) prohibit recovery in cases involving statutory undertakings

The court primarily applied the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, specifically Rules 132, 134A, and 142, which empower the government to recover "government dues" and excess payments from pensionary benefits and death gratuity

The court applied the precedent of High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh (2016), which established that if an employee furnishes an undertaking while opting for a revised pay scale, they are bound by it, and the protections against recovery enumerated in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) do not apply

Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules of 2009 and 2019, alongside their respective circulars, which mandate the submission of undertakings (Annexure II/IV) during pay fixation

The court reasoned that while Rafiq Masih generally prohibits recovery from Class IV or retired employees to prevent hardship, the subsequent ruling in Jagdev Singh clarified that such protection is unavailable if the employee was put on notice via an undertaking

In this case, the deceased employee signed statutory undertakings in 2009 and 2019, expressly consenting to the adjustment of any excess credits against future payments or gratuity

The court observed that these were not mere "obtained" signatures but statutory requirements under the Revised Pay Rules

the court noted that Rules 132 and 142 of the MCS (Pension) Rules provide a clear legal mandate for the Head of Office to ascertain and recover government dues from death gratuity

The court distinguished the petitioner's citations, noting that those cases either lacked statutory undertakings or involved recoveries without legislative backing

Consequently, the court held that the law applies equally to all classes of employees when a statutory obligation and agreement coexist

The court concluded that when an employee tenders a statutory undertaking to refund excess amounts, the respondents are entitled to effect recovery from retirement or death benefits, and such action warrants no judicial interference

Rule was discharged with no order as to costs