Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

SUBMISSIONS

2. Learned counsel for petitioner/appellant submits by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. (2015) 4 SCC 334 that the case of petitioner, who is a serving Class III employee, is covered by the ratio laid down in the said Apex Court decision in Para 18, which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-

"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly

2.3 Learned Single Bench has held that in view of undertakings and the subsequent decision of Apex Court in case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh AIR 2016 SC 3523, the earlier decision of Rafiq Masih (supra) has been distinguished by holding that the ratio laid down by Rafiq Masih (supra) would not 4 WA.293.2021 apply to cases of recovery from retired employee who had submitted written undertaking promising to return the excess amount as and when the same is found to be excess in the future. By holding so the Apex Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) however directed the employer to make recovery in reasonable instalments from retired employee.

3.4 Petitioner/appellant herein is not a retired employee but is still in service.
However, the petitioner had given written undertakings in 2009 and 2017 as explained above and thus to that extent bound herself.
3.5 Since the Apex Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) held that recovery can be made even from retired employees without specifying the Class of employees (Class III, Class IV or any other Class) then the necessary inference which can be drawn is that clause (ii) of Para 18 of Rafiq Masih (supra) by employing the expression "retired employees" or "employees who are deemed to retire within one year", includes within 7 WA.293.2021 it's sweep and ambit all categories of employees irrespective of the Class. Clause (ii) of Para 18 of Rafiq Masih (supra) which stands explained by Jagdev Singh (supra) does not grant immunity from recovery to retired employees or employees who are retiring within one year of the excess payment in cases where they have submitted written undertaking for making recovery.
4.5 Since the immunity extended to Class III employees by the decision of Rafiq Masih (supra) was diluted by Jagdev Singh (supra) in cases where written undertaking had been furnished, it can safely be held that if the written undertaking does not contain any promise to return the interest amount, which may have accrued, then the employer is estopped in view of decision of Rafiq Masih (supra) and Jagdev Singh (supra) to make any recovery of interest over the excess principal amount paid to petitioner in the past.