Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
M/O Information And Broadcasting vs Akashwani Doordarsan Administrative ... on 22 January, 2026
1 MA No.3792/2024 in
OA No.261/2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
MA No.3792/2024 in
OA No.261/2016
Order reserved on: 06.01.2026
Order pronounced on: 22.01.2026
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Union of India and others
....Applicants in MA
(Respondents in OA)
(By Advocate: Ms. Vertika Sharma)
Versus
Akashvani & Doordarshan Administrative Staff
Association and others
... Respondents in MA
(Applicants in OA)
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma )
ORDER
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) 1.1 Present MA has been filed by the applicants (respondents in the OA No. 261/2016) seeking the following prayer:
"A. Reconsider the final order dated 22.02.2023 qua issue of recovery on the basis of the Undertakings of the Applicants.
B. Reconsider the final order dated 22.02.2023 in OA 261/2016 in furtherance of the order dated 25/09/2024 in W.P (C) 2663/2024.
C. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 2 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 1.2 The applicant in the MA has approached Hon'ble Delhi High Court by filing W.P (C) No. 17590/2024. The Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2025 has held:
"10. We are of the clear view that the Tribunal could not have refused to pass any order on merits in MA 3792/2024, especially as this Court had directed that the MA be decided on merits.
11. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on being queried by the Court, is agreeable to the matter being remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on merits in MA 3792/2024 filed by the Petitioners.
12. Accordingly, without expressing any further observations on the merits of the matter, or on the legality or otherwise of the recoveries effected from the respondents, and leaving all aspects of the matter open for agitation before the Tribunal by both sides, the impugned order dated 16 October 2024 is quashed and set aside. MA 3792/2024 is remanded for reconsideration to the Tribunal afresh.
13. It is reiterated that the Tribunal would decide the MA on merits."
1.3 In view of this, the learned counsel for the applicant, in the MA, submits that the matter is required to be decided de novo. It is, in effect, a remand of the case for fresh consideration.
1.4 The learned counsel for applicant in the MA submits that the applicants in OA No. 261/2016, who were the employees of the respondents, were asked to give undertakings to the effect that in case of excess payment on account of refixation of pay they shall refund such amount. She refers to one sample undertaking which is placed at page 26 of the MA, which is reproduced below:
Digitally signed by Sunita DuttSunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 3 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 "With reference to DG: AIR, S-II letter No. A- 26022/02/2012S.ll dated 03.10.2012. I hereby exercise option for fixation of my pay from the date of 2nd ACP Le. 06.02.2008 in the revised pay scale of 6th Pay Commission In PB-2, Rs. 9300shall remain drawing pay in my pre-revised scale of 34800/with GP 4200/-Rs, 4000-6000/- upto 05.02.2008.
I also undertake that any excess payment that may be found to have been made as a result of incorrect fixation of pay or any excess payment detected in the light of discrepancies noticed subsequently will be refunded by me to the Government either by adjustment against future payments due to me or otherwise."
1.5 Similar kind of undertakings from the applicants in the OA are at page 27 to 39 of the MA. She further submits that, at the time of refixation of pay, all employees were required to furnish undertakings. Even if any undertaking in respect of the present applicants is not traceable on record, it is to be presumed that the same was duly furnished by them. She further places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. v.
Jagdev Singh, Civil Appeal No. 3500 of 2016, wherein the issue relating to the applicability of State of Punjab & Ors. v.
Rafiq Masih vis-à-vis cases, where employees had furnished undertakings, was considered. Particularly she refers to paragraph 10 and 11 of the same, which are reproduced below:
"10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:
"(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 4 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
(emphasis supplied).
11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking."
1.6 While considering the facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide judgment dated 29.07.2016, held that employees who have furnished undertakings to refund any excess amount arising out of refixation of pay are bound to refund the same to the Administrative Authorities. In the instant case, learned counsel for respondents has already pointed out that all the applicants in OA No. 261/2016 had furnished such undertakings. In view thereof, by applying the ratio of the judgment in Jagdev Singh (supra), the respondents in OA No. 261/2016 are entitled to recover the excess amount paid to the applicants therein.
Digitally signed by Sunita DuttSunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 5 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 1.7 In view of the above, she submits that the order dated 22.02.2023 passed in OA No. 261/2016 deserves to be recalled, and the applicants in the present MA be permitted to recover the excess amount from the respondents in the MA.
2.1 Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents in MA refers to paragraph 3 the order dated 22.02.2023 passed in OA No. 261/2016, which is reproduced as under:
"3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that being custodians of the public fund, the respondents are obliged to effect recovery once it is detected that over payment has been made to the applicants. She further submits that all the applicants at the time of fixation of pay had furnished a written undertaking that in case any over payment is made, they shall be liable to refund the same view of this undertaking as also the low laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3500 of 2006 titled Jagdev Singh vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors., the respondents have no option but to effect the recovery She elaborates that in the aforementioned matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically stipulated that once the employee has given an undertaking, he cannot escape recovery of any excess payment which may have been granted to him beyond entitlement."
Further he refers to paragraph 5 of the order dated 16.10.2024 which is reproduced below:
"5. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdev Singh (supra) the OA, was decided in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih. According to us, the respondents are in fact trying to seek review of the order dated 22.02.2023. As there is no error of fact or law pointed out in the order, more so learned counsel for applicant in the MA, the contends of the MA, had been duly dealt with by the Tribunal as detailed above.
Accordingly, we do not find merit in the MA, the same is dismissed."
In view of the above, the learned counsel for the applicants in the OA submits that it is not the case that this Tribunal has failed to consider the ratio of the judgment in Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 6 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 Jagdev Singh (supra). The Tribunal has duly considered both the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) as well as Jagdev Singh (supra) and upon considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, was pleased to allow the OA and also to dismiss the earlier MA. In view thereof, there is no necessity to reconsider the matter, as the Tribunal has taken appropriate steps after considering both the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
2.2 He further submits that in the order dated 25.09.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2663/2024, as well as the order dated 08.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 17590/2024, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has not expressed any opinion on the issue as to whether the applicants in the present MA are entitled to effect any recovery.
2.3 As regards the undertakings allegedly given by the applicants in the OA, he refers to Annexure A-5 at page 26 and reemphasizes that the said undertakings pertain only to any excess payment in respect of the grant of 2nd ACP w.e.f.
06.02.2008, and not to the refixation of pay of the applicants in the OA, which was effected w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The subject matter of the Original OA is the fixation of pay of the applicants therein w.e.f. 01.01.2006. He further refers to Annexure A-1 of the OA and the first paragraph of the same is reproduced as under:
Digitally signed by Sunita DuttSunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 7 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 "Reference is invited to DG:AIR's letter dated 4.10.2012 regarding pay fixation of Head Clerks/Assistants/Steno Grade II working in DG:AIR and Doordarshan as per Illustration 4 (A) In note to below Rule 7 of 6th CPC Gazette Notification. While reviewing the pay fixation case by FMRRS, it was noticed-that-pay of Head Clerks/UDCs/ Stenos/Accountants etc drawing pay scale of 5000-9000 has wrongly been upgraded in the pay scale of Rs. 6500- 10500 after given the benefit of bunching. However, there is no provision of bunching in 6th Central Pay Commission."
2.4 As brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the learned counsel for the applicants in the OA, the undertakings relied upon by the respondents pertain to the grant of 2nd ACP, whereas the relief sought in the OA relates to the refixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Therefore, the said undertakings have no relevance to the relief claimed by the applicants in the OA.
2.5 He further submits that, in a similar factual situation, an identical matter was adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Madras, vide order dated 30.10.2018, passed in OA No. 310/1693/2016. He refers to paragraph 5 of the same, which is reproduced as under:
"5. Further, a perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors v. Jagdev Singh in Civil Appeal No. 3500/2016 dated 29.07.2016, cited supra would show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made the observations in respect of a Civil Judge, who was not a Class-III and Class-IV employee. As the Hon'ble Apex Court had made its observations regarding the undertaking given by the employee in category (ii) of the citation referred to therein which pertained to "recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery" and not a situation mentioned against category (1) that related to "recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service'), we are of the view that the ratio of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (Whiter Washer) case would be applicable to the applicant's case and not Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 8 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 the case relied upon by the respondents unless the applicant is regarded as a Class II officer."
The said order of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 1369/142/2019, wherein the decision of the Tribunal was upheld.
Subsequently, the applicants in the present MA also approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No. 35335/2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.09.2024.
2.6 In view of the above, the issue relating to recovery from employees by applying the ratio of the judgments in Rafiq Masih (supra) vis-à-vis Jagdev Singh (supra) has already been duly considered, and the matter has been settled through various OAs decided by this Tribunal.
2.7 He further refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 04.04.2025 in Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors., SLP (C) No. 5918/2024, wherein it was once again reaffirmed that the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra) would apply in all cases, irrespective of the existence of any undertaking. Particularly he refers to paragraph 11, which is reproduced as under:
"11. In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India this Court considered an identical question as under:
"27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 9 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 76- 1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18: 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521: 1994 SCC (L&S) 683: (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 India v. M. 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. Regional Jt. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]):
(a) The excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee.
(b) Such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.
28. Such relief, restraining back recovery of excess payment, is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented.
government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family. If he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it. As any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him, relief is granted in that behalf. But where the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, courts will not grant relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case refuse to grant such relief against recovery.
29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when compared to in service employees. Any attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them. The petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in regard to the excess payment. NPA was added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up, due to a wrong understanding by the implementing departments. We are therefore of the view that the respondents shall not recover any excess payments made towards pension in pursuance of the circular dated 7-6-1999 till the issue of the clarificatory circular dated 11-9-2001. Insofar as any excess Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 10 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 payment made after the circular dated 11-9-2001, obviously the Union of India will be entitled to recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has been upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in regard to the wrong calculations earlier made."
3.1 In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicants in the MA submits that it is not correct to state that the undertakings were taken only in respect of the grant of 2nd ACP. According to her, the undertakings were also taken in relation to the refixation of pay, and she refers to such undertakings, a sample whereof has been placed at page 33 of the MA.
3.2 She further refers to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Madras in OA No. 310/1693/2016, and submits that there is no specific finding therein with regard to the applicability or otherwise of the ratio of the judgment in Jagdev Singh vis-à-vis Rafiq Masih in that case.
3.3 The aforesaid case, therefore, stands distinguished from the present case. It is submitted that, in that matter, the undertakings appear to have been taken after retirement, whereas in the present case, the undertakings were obtained at the time of refixation of pay. To substantiate her claim, she refers to paragraph 3 of the judgment dated 09.03.2020 in W.P(C) No. 13690 and 14032 of 2019, where the Madras High Court has held as follows:
Digitally signed by Sunita DuttSunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 11 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 "3. We do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed. The petitioners cannot produce any material before this Court to contend. On the contrary what was produced before Tribunal was the undertaking given after the retirement. If the petitioners have got any undertaking before retirement, there is no necessity to produce and rely upon the undertaking given after retirement"
4. Analysis
4.1 The matter regarding recovery of wrongful payments to an employee during and after superannuation has been succinctly discussed in its judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC. This judgment derived its basis from the Directive Principles of the Constitution of India enshrined in Articles 38, 39, 39-A,43,46. A holistic essence of these Articles mandates the state to ensure adequate means of livelihood, and by providing for adequate wages so as to ensure appropriate standards of living to the citizens of this country. This extends to the employees, serving or retired, of the state. Hence, any action by the State, as an employer, ordering recovery from an employee would be sustainable as long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent that action of recovery would be more unfair, wrongful, improper, unwarranted than corresponding right of employer to recover.
4.2 Against the above background, can it be said that the State is barred to recover any amount due from the employee Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 12 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 due to any circumstance, if it does not satisfy the cannons of ensuring adequate means of livelihood? The Apex Court has not prohibited, in the Rafiq Masih (supra) case, that recovery of such benefit of overpayment cannot be effected from an employee who was not accessory to mistake committed by employer, or was not guilty of furnishing any factually incorrect information, or fraud or misinterpretation, and for all the categories of employees and for all the time. The Rafiq Masih (supra) judgment has not completely taken away the right of the state to recover any amount from the employee under these circumstances, but it has restricted the scope of non-recovery to specific instances, keeping the basic duty of the state to ensure the basic standards of livelihood to the employee to maintain dignity of life as the gold standard for such recovery. Though, this judgment has given a list of circumstances when recovery is impermissible by law, it has left to the scope to add other such circumstances to qualify such gold standard for non-recovery. Pargraphs 8 and 10 of the said judgment say:
"8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the concerned employee. If the effect of the recovery from the concerned employee would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 13 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover.
xxx xxx xxx
10. In view of the afore-stated constitutional mandate, equity and good conscience, in the matter of livelihood of the people of this country, has to be the basis of all governmental actions. An action of the State, ordering a recovery from an employee, would be in order, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent, that the action of recovery would be more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer, to recover the amount. Or in other words, till such time as the recovery would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be permissible in law."
4.3 Many a time, employees are given monetary benefits which were in excess of their entitlement. These benefits flows to them, consequent upon a mistake committed by the authority concerned, in determining the emolument payable to them. The mistake could have occurred on account of a variety of reasons; including the grant of a status which the employee concerned was not entitled to; or payment of salary in a higher scale, than in consonance of the right of the employee, consequent upon the upward revision of pay scale;
or a wrongful fixation of salary of the employee; or for having been granted allowances, for which the employee concerned was not authorized.
4.4 With the above contextual background, the Apex Court has laid down specific instances/circumstances when recovery from the employee would be impermissible Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 14 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 "18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
4.5 In view of the aforementioned judgments by the Apex Court, it is now settled law that recoveries from the employees for wrongful or irregular payments shall be tested against the principle set in the Rafiq Masih (supra) case.
4.6 The Union of India through DoP&T has accepted the above mentioned judgment of the Apex Court and directed various departments and Ministries to deal with the issue of wrongful/excess payments made to government servants in accordance with the said judgement. Particularly, the DoP&T OM No. F.No.18/03/2015-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 2.3.2016 states:
"5. The matter has, consequently, been examined in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and the Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 15 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 Department of Legal Affairs. The Ministries / Departments are advised to deal with the issue of wrongful / excess payments made to Government servants in accordance with above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA NoJ1527 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.11684 of 2012) in State of Punjab and others etc vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. However, wherever the waiver of recovery in the above-mentioned situations is considered, the same may be allowed with the express approval of Department of Expenditure in terms of this Department's OM No.18/26/201 1-Estt (Pay-I) dated 6th February, 2014."
4.7 In most of the cases, the government departments/ministries revise the pay scales granted earlier to the government servant at the fag end of the career and after re-fixation of the pay scales with effect from certain back date, order recovery of such irregular payment. The DoP&T has again reiterated this decision of the Government vide OM No. 18/03/2015-Estt (Pay-I) dated 03.10.2022. This OM states:
"4. In this context, it is observed that the time taken by the Ministries/Departments/Offices to discover mistakes/clerical faults in pay fixation of their employees is highly avoidable. The situation of overpayments occurs on account of erroneous calculation of payments due to an employee. If not detected in time, amount becoming due for recovery due to these excess payments keep accruing. In many cases, these overpayments come to notice of the administrative authority at a very late stage resulting in substantial amounts becoming due for recovery. However, in the wake of the Order dated 18.12.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above, these recoveries are to be considered for waiver in the types of cases identified therein. As a result, the administrative authorities concerned are compelled to explore other alternatives available to recover the amount involved or seek approval of the D/o Expenditure to waive off the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed in this Department's OM dated 02.03.2016 read with the instructions contained in DoPT's OM No 18/26/2011- Estt (Pay-I) dated 06.02.2014.
5. The matter has been examined in consultation with the D/o Expenditure. It is advised that --
Digitally signed by Sunita DuttSunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 16 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 i. Ministries / Departments / Offices may exercise extreme caution and take suitable measures while handling pay fixation of their employees as also in other cases involving payments so as to ensure that such lapses/mistakes do not occur;
ii. Pay fixation orders issued due to grant of MACP/ACP/financial upgradation/ increment! promotion etc. may necessarily be audited by the internal audit and/or the Pay & Accounts Office concerned within 3 months of issuing such orders; and iii. In cases where the employee is due to retire within next 4 years, audit of previous pay fixation orders shall be done on priority."
This process of referring the waiver of the excess recovery from the government servant, Government of India to the Department of Expenditure has also been reiterated by the OM No 09(20)/2023-E.II (A) dated 1.6.2023 by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India .
4.8 These are the internal processes to be adopted by various Government Departments/Ministries and autonomous entities of Government of India adopting the guidelines of DOPT, mutatis mutandis. In other words, though the DoP&T and Department of Expenditure have accepted the basic principles laid down in the Rafiq Masih case, they have not given blanket liberty to individual departments/Ministries to decide waiver of recovery in those situations mentioned in the said judgement, but kept the final authority for decision with the Department of Expenditure. Nevertheless, such Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 17 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 policy circulars have accepted the judgement of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih case.
4.9 When the matter was under consideration in Rafiq Masih (supra) case a reference was made to a Three Member Bench of the Apex Court because of the apparent difference of opinion expressed on one hand in the cases of Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Sahib Ram Verma vs. State of Haryana, (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 18 and on the other hand, in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 417. The two Judge Bench in Rafiq Masih (supra) matter was referred to a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court. The order of reference made by two Judge Bench of the Apex Court reads as under:
"In view of an apparent difference of views expressed on the one hand in Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 521 and Sahib Ram Verma vs. State of Haryana (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 18; and on the other hand in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 417, we are of the view that the remaining special leave petitions should be placed before a Bench of Three Judges. The Registry is accordingly directed to place the file of the remaining special leave petitions before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for taking instructions for the constitution of a Bench of Three Judges, to adjudicate upon the present controversy."
4.10 The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court furnished its opinion in the following manner:
"5. In Shyam Babu Verma's case (1994) (Supra), this Court while observing that the petitioners-therein were not entitled Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 18 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 to the higher pay scales, had come to the conclusion that since the amount has already been paid to the petitioner, for no fault of theirs, the said amount shall not be recovered by the respondent-Union of India. The observations made by this Court in the said case are as under:
"Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs.330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs.330-560 but as they have received the scale of Rs.330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January 1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them.
6. In Sahib Ram Verma's case (Supra), this Court once again held that although the appellant therein did not possess the required educational qualification, yet the Principal granting him the relaxation, had paid his salary on the revised pay scale. This Court further observed that this was not on account of mis-representation made by the appellant but by a mistake committed by the Principal. In a fact situation of that nature, the Court was pleased to observe that the amount already paid to the appellant need not be recovered. In the words of the Court:
"Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which appellant cannot be held to be fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant."
7. In our considered view, the observations made by the Court not to recover the excess amount paid to the appellant-therein were in exercise of its extra-ordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which vest the power in this Court to pass equitable orders in the ends of justice.
8. In Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case (Supra), a specific issue was raised and canvassed. The issue was whether the appellant-therein can retain the amount received on the basis of irregular/wrong pay fixation in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. The Court after taking into consideration the various decisions of this Court had come to the conclusion that even if by mistake of the employer the amount is paid to the employee and on a later date if the employer after proper determination of the same discovers that the excess payment is made by mistake or negligence, the excess payment so made could be Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 19 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 recovered. While holding so this Court observed at paragraphs 14 and 16 as under:
"14.We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "taxpayers' money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see when the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the government officers may be due to various reason like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.
16. The appellant in the appeal will not fall in any of these exceptional categories, over and above, there was a stipulation in the fixation order that in the condition of irregular/wrong pay fixation, the institution in which the appellants were working would be responsible for recovery of the amount received in excess from the salary/pension. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. However we order that excess payment made be recovered from the appellants salary in 12 equal monthly instalments."
9. In our view, the law laid down in Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case, no way conflicts with the observations made by this Court in the other two cases. In those decisions, directions were issued in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, but in the subsequent decision this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, in laying down the law had dismissed the petition of the employee. This Court in a number of cases had battled with tracing the contours of the provision in Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India. Distinctively, although Page 20 20 the words employed under the two aforesaid provision speak of the powers of this Court, the former vest a plenary jurisdiction in supreme court in the matter of entertaining and hearing of appeals by granting special leave against any judgment or order made by a Court or Tribunal in any cause or matter. The powers are plenary to the extent that they are paramount to the Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 20 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 limitations under the specific provisions for appeal contained in the Constitution or other laws. Article 142 of the Constitution of India, on the other hand is a step ahead of the powers envisaged under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It is the exercise of jurisdiction to pass such enforceable decree or order as is necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter. The word 'complete justice' was fraught with uncertainty until Article 142 of the Constitution received its first interpretation in Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., AIR (1963) SC 996 which added a rider to the exercise of wide extraordinary powers Page 21 21 by laying down that though the powers are wide, the same is an ancillary power and can be used when not expressly in conflict with the substantive provisions of law. This view was endorsed by a Nine-Judges Bench in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, (1966) 3 SCR 744 reiterated by a Seven Judge Bench in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 and finally settled in the Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409.
10. Article 136 of the Constitution of India, confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. Article 136 is a special jurisdiction and can be best described in the words of this Court in Ramakant Rai v. Madab Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395, "It is a residuary power, it is extraordinary in its amplitude, its limits when it chases injustice, is the sky itself". Article 136 of the Constitution of India was legislatively intended to be exercised by the Page 22 22 Highest Court of the Land, with scrupulous adherence to the settled judicial principle well established by precedents in our jurisprudence. Article 136 of the Constitution is a corrective jurisdiction that vest a discretion in the Supreme Court to settle the law clear and as forthrightly forwarded in the case of Union of India v. Karnail Singh, (1995) 2 SCC 728, it makes the law operational to make it a binding precedent for the future instead of keeping it vague. In short, it declares the law, as under Article 141 of the Constitution.
11. Article 142 of the Constitution of India is supplementary in nature and cannot supplant the substantive provisions, though they are not limited by the substantive provisions in the statute. It is a power that gives preference to equity over law. It is a justice oriented approach as against the strict rigors of the law. The directions issued by the court can normally be categorized into one, in the nature of moulding of relief and the other, as the declaration of law. 'Declaration of Law' as contemplated in Article 141 of the Constitution: is the speech express or necessarily implied by the Highest Court of the land. This Court in the case of Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd., 2006 5 SCC 72, Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 SCC 381 and in State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi (2006) 1 SCC 667, has expounded the principle and extolled the power of Article 142 of the Constitution of India to new heights by laying down that the directions issued under Article 142 do not constitute a binding precedent unlike Article 141 of the Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 21 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 Constitution of India. They are direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such power, cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Court have compartmentalized and differentiated the relief in the operative portion of the judgment by exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution as against the law declared. The directions of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, while moulding the relief, that relax the application of law or exempt the case in hand from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its basic premise of making it a binding precedent. This Court on the qui vive has expanded the horizons of Article 142 of the Constitution by keeping it outside the purview of Article 141 of the Constitution and by declaring it a direction of the Court that changes its complexion with the peculiarity in the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. Therefore, in our opinion, the decisions of the Court based on different scales of Article 136 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be best weighed on the same grounds of reasoning and thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no conflict in the views expressed in the first Page 25 25 two judgments and the latter judgment.
13. In that view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that reference was unnecessary. Therefore, without answering the reference, we send back the matters to the Division Bench for its appropriate disposal."
4.11 As there is no conflict between the Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) case (Invoking Article 136/141 and the Shyam Babu Verma (supra) and Sahib Ram Verma (supra) buttressed by Rafiq Masih case (18th December, 2014), the principles laid down in Chandi Prasad (supra) case are also valid. The principles laid down in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra), where recoveries are possible are as follows:
The amount is recoverable when:
(i) If the excess payment is due to any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipient (para 9) Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 22 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016
(ii) When an undertaking is given by the employee that in case wrong fixation he/she refund the excess payment ( implicit in Para 18) 4.11 In Paragraph 17, the Apex Court in Chandiprasad Uniyal (supra) case has held:
"We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Sayed Abdul Qadir case(supra) and in Col J.B. Akkara (Rtd) case (supra), the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered."
4.12 The question comes: what are those few instances? In all those cases, hardship to the employee had been considered. The Rafiq Masih (Dec 2014) has expanded the hard ship cases.
4.12 After the Rafiq Masih (supra) judgment, was further analysed and expanded by the Apex Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh in Civil Appeal No. 3500 of 2006 decided on 29.7.2016. The Apex Court in Jagdev Singh (supra) case held:
"11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.
12 For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 23 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years.
13 The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The Civil Appeal shall stand allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs."
4.13 Perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagdev Singh (supra) case shows that it has expanded /clarified the only clause (ii) of the Rafiq Masih (supra) decision. The clause (ii) of the said paragraph in Rafiq Masih case states"
Recovery from retired employees, employees who are due to retire within one year, of order of recovery" is impermissible by law. In Jagdev Singh (case), the Apex Court put a rider or proviso that such recoveries are permissible when an employee was put to notice or intimated in respect of such recovery and the employee has furnished an undertaking that if it was found that excess payment have been made, he/she shall refund such excess amount.
4.14 Recently the Apex Court in Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2010; May 2, 2022 has reiterated the stand taken by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) case. Again, the Apex court analysed the judgments of the Apex Court in Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana and Others 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (2009) 3 SCC 475, State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Col. B.J. Akkara Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 24 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 (Retd.) v. Government of India and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 709] (Para 9) and held that:
"9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess."
"14. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid."
4.15 The principles set in the Rafiq Masih (supra) case has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the Thomas Daniel Vs. Sate of Karala and Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 436. Citing the Rafiq Masih (supra) judgment, the Apex Court held:
"(14) Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General.
(15) Having regard to the above, we are of the view that an attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified."Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 25 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 4.16 The principles enunciated in Rafiq Masih case were upheld and reiterated in Daniel Thomas (supra). But, it has not taken any contrary view as the Apex Court held in Jagdev Singh (supra) case, particularly in respect of clause (ii) of the said guiding principles in Paragraphs 10 & 18 of Rafiq Masih judgment.
4.17 In the instant case, the respondents in the OA, who are the applicants in the present MA, vide order dated 5.1.2016 decided to refix the pay of all applicants in the OA with effect from 1.1.2006, in pursuance of their order dated 31.12.2015 and order dated 28.7.2015. The applicants in the OA sought the following relief:
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the order dated 5.1.2016 (A1), order dated 31.12.2015 (A/2) and order dated 28.7.2015 (A/3) declaring to the effect that same are totally illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to restore the pay of the applicants at the Same place/stage as done prior to passing of the impugned with all the consequential benefits.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the whole action of respondents deciding to recover the excess payment if any is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the law of the land and consequently pass an order of refund the recovered amount if any with interest.
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants."
4.18 This Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2023 allowed the OA and passed the following order:
"7. Accordingly, the OA is allowed to the extent that recovery of any alleged or stated excess payment made in Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 26 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 pursuance of the pay fixation of the applicants shall not be made and stands waived off.
8. As a consequence of this order, the respondents are obliged to refund the amount, if any which stands already recovered. Further, if any of the terminal or other benefits of the applicants have been withheld to secure this recovery, the same too shall be released forthwith, in no case later than 12 weeks from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order."
4.19 The respondents in the OA challenged the said order before the Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 2663 of 2024. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 25.9.2024 passed the following order:
"8. Suffice it to state that, against the judgment dated 22 February 2023 of the Tribunal, the petitioners earlier approached this Court by way of WP (C) 2663/2024, which was disposed of by a Bench, of which one of us (C. Hari Shankar, J.) was a party, by the following order dated 25 September 2024.
"1. After some hearing, Ms. Vertika Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this petition as she submits that she would be preferring to move the Central Administrative Tribunal for appropriate orders.
2. Leave and liberty is granted as prayed for.
3. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on whether the petitioner would be entitled to any favourable orders from the learned tribunal. If any application is moved before the learned tribunal, it shall be considered on its own merits.
5. Interim order, if any, passed in this case stands vacated."
4.20 The respondents, in compliance of aforementioned order dated 25.9.2025 filed the present MA No.3792 of 2025 Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 27 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016 seeking the aforementioned relief. This Tribunal vide order dated 16.10.2024 passed the following order:
"5. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdev Singh (supra) the OA, was decided in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih. According to us, the respondents are in fact trying to seek review of the order dated 22.02.2023. As there is no error of fact or law pointed out in the order, more so learned counsel for applicant in the MA, the contends of the MA, had been duly dealt with by the Tribunal as detailed above. Accordingly, we do not find merit in the MA, the same is dismissed."
4.21 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide judgment-order dated 8.1.2025 passed the directed this Tribunal to decide the MA afresh on merits. As we have analysed above, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents in the OA and applicants in the present MA have insisted that the Apex Court in Jagdev Singh (supra) case has held that it is permissible under law to recover the excess amount paid to employees when the employee has given an undertaking to refund any such amount, even when such employees have retired or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery.
In effect, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide this order has directed this Tribunal to have a relook of the OA to pass an appropriate order in view of the application of ratio of the judgement of the Apex Court in Jagdev Singh (supra) case .
Digitally signed by Sunita DuttSunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 28 MA No.3792/2024 in OA No.261/2016
5. Conclusion 5.1 In view of the aforesaid analysis, MA No.3792/2024 is allowed. The order dated 22.02.2023 passed in OA No. 261/2016 is recalled. Let there be fresh hearing in the said OA.
5.2 Relist OA No.261/2016 for fresh hearing on 18.2.2026.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
'SD'
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.01.23 15:20:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0