Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(j) Case of NHPCL is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others v. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, wherein the Supreme Court held that the principle that recovery from retired employees or those who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery is impermissible, is inapplicable where an officer to whom payment was made in first instance was clearly put to notice that excess payment was liable to be refunded. Once Petitioners have given an undertaking while opting for revised pay scales that they would refund the excess amounts paid, they will be bound by the same as in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra).

13. Reliance placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) is totally misplaced. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has upheld the recovery of the excess amount that was paid to the respondents therein with a clear undertaking that any payment found to be in excess would liable to be adjusted. In fact, the Supreme Court has distinguished the judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). No such undertaking has been given by the petitioner herein at the time of grant of 2nd ACP/3rd MACP in 2005/2011 respectively. In fact, we note, no finding has been returned by the Tribunal in that regard to make the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) applicable to the facts of this case. Rather, we find that the Tribunal has said that the impugned orders have been passed in view of the pre-audit done in the case of the petitioner while determining his pension and other retiral benefits when they found, inadvertently the petitioner was granted 2nd ACP/3rd MACP from the date prior to the date of his actual entitlement, which has been rectified by the impugned orders dated August 8, 2018 and August 28, 2018.

12. xxx xxx xxx

13. In that view of the matter, it appears that the petitioners' case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). On the other hand, in Jagdev Singh (supra), which has been relied on by the appellant, wherein the proposition enunciated in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has been held by the Supreme Court to be not applicable, it is found that the distinguishing feature in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) was that unlike in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the employee from which the recovery was sought to be made was not either Class-III or Class-IV employee, but was an Additional Civil Judge. That apart, the employee, Jagdev Singh was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess, would be required to be refunded. To that effect, the officer had also furnished an undertaking for refund while opting for the revised pay- scale, which was not the case in Rafiq Masih (supra). It was on the above distinguishing features in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) that the Supreme Court has held that the proposition enunciated in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) will not be applicable therein.

40. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in Ravinder Kumar v. Govt. of NCT Delhi through Chief Secretary and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8288, has distinguished the case of Jagdev Singh (supra), in the context of an undertaking and I quote:-

"15. Mr. Singh submits that as the petitioner had himself, in his letter dated 8 September 2014, agreed for recovery of the excess payment from his GPF, the petitioner could not thereafter seek to challenge the recovery. Reliance has been placed, by Mr. Singh, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh.