Chattisgarh High Court
Shekh Jalil vs Union Of India on 19 June, 2026
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR
ALI
Digitally 2026:CGHC:25550-DB
signed by
SYED
ROSHAN NAFR
ZAMIR
ALI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8156 of 2024
1. Shekh Jalil S/o Late Shekh Chhotu Aged About 75 Years
Retired Pointsman A/secr/bsp, R/o Taiyaba Chowk, Near
Ration Shop, Talapara, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001
... Petitioner
versus
1. Union of India General Manager, South East Central Railway,
New GM Building, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495004
2. Chief Personnel Officer South East Central Railway,
Divisional Office, Personnel Branch Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
495004
3. Senior AFA/pension South East Central Railway, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh 495004
4. State Bank Of India Through Its Branch Manager, Agriculture
Development Branch, Shivdalare Mishra Complex, Vyapar
Vihar Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001
5. Chief Manager Centralized Pension Payment Cell,
Govindpura, Near Iti, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 462023
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. A.V. Sridhar, Advocate (through video
conferencing) with Mr. Rahul Sharma,
Advocate
For Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr Rishabh Singh Deo, Advocate
For Respondent No.4 & 5 : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. PR Patankar, Advocate
2
DB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu,J
& Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, j
Order on Board
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J
19.06.2026
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 24.8.2023
passed in Original Application No.203/769/2017 by which
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench,
Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur has dismissed the original
application filed by petitioner against recovery from his
pension towards excess amount paid to him.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner retired from the
service on attaining the age of superannuation while working
as Pointsman in South East Central Railways (SECR). After
retirement, pension payment order for payment of pension
came to be issued in favour of petitioner and in terms thereof,
pension amount was being credited every month into account
of petitioner till April, 2016. However, on receipt of pension
slip for the month of May 2016, petitioner was surprised to
know that a deduction of Rs.4,000/- has been made from his
pension. Upon enquiry, petitioner was informed by respondent
Bank authorities that a recovery of Rs.3,79,611/-, which was
paid in excess to him due to clerical error, is to be made from
the pension of petitioner and to be returned to respondent
SECR. A sum of Rs.1,15,963/- to be received by petitioner
3
towards arrears was also deducted by respondent Bank and
returned to respondent SECR. Petitioner preferred an original
application before the Tribunal with a prayer to quash the
notice dated 14.06.2016 and direction to respondents not to
make any recovery from his pension and also to refund the
amount deducted from the pension of petitioner. The Tribunal
vide order impugned dismissed the original application of
petitioner on the ground that petitioner has furnished an
undertaking that in case any excess payment is made, same
shall be recovered from him, therefore, he is bound by
undertaking and as such, action of respondents is correct.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner would argue that the impugned
action of the respondent Bank in recovering huge amount
from petitioner’s pension without affording opportunity of
hearing and without issuing any show-cause notice, is illegal
and arbitrary. He submits that petitioner stood retired from
service on 31.8.2009 and the recovery from his pension is
initiated from May 2016, which is contrary to provision of Rule
1023 of the Indian Railways Accounts Code Part-1, according
to which, check of correctness of past emoluments should not
go back to a period earlier than a maximum of 24 months
preceding the retirement. He next contended that the
recovery has been made from the petitioner on the basis of
alleged undertaking furnished by the petitioner. However, the
4
undertaking, if any, submitted by petitioner during his service
tenure does not give any authority to the respondents to
recover excess amount paid to the petitioner due to clerical
error. He further submits that excess payment is not made to
petitioner because of any misrepresentation or fraud on the
part of petitioner, hence, recovery of amount, if any paid in
excess, cannot be made from petitioner. Recovery is made
without giving any opportunity of hearing and therefore
patently illegal being in violation of principles of natural
justice. He lastly submits that petitioner is a low-paid
employee and therefore recovery from the pension of the
petitioner is also not permissible in view of decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court judgment in case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3 opposes
submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that
excess payment has been made to petitioner due to clerical
error and petitioner has also given undertaking for recovery of
amount, if paid in excess to petitioner. He submits that while
recovering excess payment made to the petitioner, financial
condition of the petitioner has been taken care of and
recovery from pension of petitioner is adjusted in easy
installments so that petitioner can also survive on the pension
which he is getting.
5
5. Learned counsel for respondent Bank, referring to the
undertaking, Annexure R4-4, would submit that petitioner was
clearly informed at the inception that any payment found to
have been made in excess would be required to be refunded
and in turn, petitioner agrees by furnishing undertaking to
refund or to permit adjustment of any amount to which he is
not entitled. This undertaking is sufficient in law to sustain the
recovery and takes the case of petitioner outside the line of
authority which restrains recovery on equitable
considerations. He further submits that petitioner was duly
intimated vide letter dated 30.4.2016 that excess amount of
pension for the period from 01.09.2009 to 30.4.2016 due to
incorrect application of Dearness Allowance, is to be
recovered from his pension. Recovery is not effected in
lump-sum but through easy installments. He submits that
public money paid by mistake is ordinarily recoverable and
erroneous disbursement of public funds cannot be treated as
irrecoverable merely because mistake originated with the
authority. In support of his submissions, he places reliance
on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chandi
Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttranchal reported in (2012)
8 SCC 417.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused
the documents available in record of writ petition.
6
7. It is not in dispute that petitioner retired from Railways on
31.8.2009 as Pointsman-A, which is stated to be a Group-D
post, his pension was commenced from 1.9.2009. The
discrepancy in payment of excess pension amount to the
petitioner for the period from 1.9.2009 to 30.4.2016 on
account of wrong calculation of Dearness Allowance was
detected and intimated to petitioner vide letter dated
30.4.2016 (Annexure R4-1) and thereafter recovery from the
pension of petitioner started from May 2016 i.e. after a
prolonged period of seven years from the date of retirement
of the petitioner. It is also not a matter of dispute between the
parties that the payment of Dearness Allowance to the
petitioner was not based on any misrepresentation or fraud
on his part. It is also not substantiated by documentary
evidence on behalf of respondent bank that petitioner had
knowledge that the amount that was being paid to him was
more than what he was entitled to.
8. In case of Col. B.J.Akkara v. Government of India, reported in
2006 11 SCC 709, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:
“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
7implemented. A 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.”
9. In case of Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, reported in
(2009) 3 SCC 475 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
follows:-
“59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has
been paid to the appellant teachers was not
because of any misrepresentation or fraud on
their part and the appellants also had no
knowledge that the amount that was being paid to
them was more than what they were entitled to. It
would not be out of place to mention here that the
Finance Department had, in its counter- affidavit,
admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their
part. The excess payment made was the result of
wrong interpretation of the Rule that was
8applicable to them, for which the appellants
cannot be held responsible……”
10. In WPS No.88/2025, parties being Smt. Vimla Singh vs State
of Chhattisgarh & ors, respondent Bank sought to recover
excess amount of pension made to petitioner therein between
the period 12.8.2009 tp 31.3.2024. The Coordinate Bench
vide order dated 1.4.2025 set aside order of recovery on the
ground that alleged excess amount has not been received by
petitioner by playing a fraud, directed the respondents therein
not to recover any amount from the pension of petitioner
therein and further directed to refund the amount recovered.
Relevant paras of the order dated 1.4.2025 is quoted herein
below:-
“5. It is not in dispute that the husband of the
petitioner retired from service in the year 2002 and
died in the year 2007 and since then, the petitioner
is getting the family pension and using the same
for her expanses. All of a sudden, after a period of
one and a half decade, the respondent/bank hold
the bank account of the petitioner stating that the
excess payment has been paid to the petitioner
and the same is required to be recovered. The
contention of the respondent does not found force
as the payment of alleged excess amount has not
been received by the petitioner by playing a fraud.
6.In the matter of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra),
the issue was relating to excess payment of salary
9whereas the present case relating to family
pension of a widow of the deceased employee and
hence, the reliance placed by the learned State
counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present
case.”
Said order of the learned writ Court was put to challenge by
filing WA No.533/2025 and said appeal was dismissed by
Division Bench vide order dated 31.7.2025.
11. In case at hand, indisputably excess dearness allowance,
payable on pension, commenced to be paid erroneously in
the year 2009. The same was sough to be recovered in 2016
i.e. after a period of 07 years. Excess amount that has been
paid to petitioner was not because of any misrepresentation
or fraud on his part or he had knowledge about excess
payment. Respondent Bank in its reply has admitted that
excess payment was made due to clerical error Further, there
is long delay in identifying the error in payment of Dearness
Allowance, payable on pension, to petitioner.
12. In case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) and Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334,
Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with issue of recovery
from employees/retired employees, has held recovery of
excess payment made to Group-C and Group-D to be
impermissible. One of the consideration for setting aside the
order /notice to recovery is equity and to save the employees
10
from financial hardship. Relevant portion of the decision in
Rafiq Masih (supra) reads as under:-
“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 employee concerned. If the effect
of the recovery from the employee concerned would
be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and
more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of
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.
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) xxxx
(ii) xxxx
(iii) xxxx
11
(iv) xxxx
(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.”
13. The Full Bench of High Court of Calcutta in WA
No.10545/2020 (Renuka Sarkar vs The State of West Bengal
& ors) and other connected appeals, decided on 30.6.2023,
while answering the question ‘whether a Bank, being the
disbursing authority of pension to a retired employee or his
family member, can be brought within the fold of the Supreme
Court decision in Rafiq Masih (supra) has observed thus:-
“18. In respect of reference this Court feels that the
Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in
State of Punjab and ors. Vs Rafiq Masih (white
washer) and ors. Reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334
encompasses all the interested parties in respect of
payment of pension and receipt of pension. Thus,
the bank that is the disbursing authority and all the
pensioners including the persons receiving family
pension are fall within the ambit of the ratio decidendi
laid down in the aforesaid Judgment….”
(emphasis supplied)
12
14. Therefore, in light of ratio laid down in above decisions of
Hon’ble Supreme Court; the order passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court, which is affirmed by the Division Bench,
as also order of the Full Bench of High Court of Calcutta and
in the given circumstances, this Court is of the view that
recovery of excess pension discovered after lapse of more 07
years would be iniquitous and arbitrary, and as such, violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. So far as submission of learned counsel for respondent Bank
that petitioner has furnished undertaking before the
respondent bank is concerned, petitioner was a Group-D
employee in the Railways, might not be knowing the
consequences and implications of undertaking furnished by
him before the Bank. It is also not contended before this
Court that petitioner had knowledge that the amount that was
being paid to him was more than what he was entitled to or
on account of any misrepresentation or fraud played by
petitioner, excess pension was being paid to him. Thus,
considering that petitioner is a Group -D employee not aware
of the consequence or implications of giving an undertaking
and excess payment made solely on account of latches and
fault on the part of the respondent-Bank without there being
any misrepresentation or fraud having been committed on the
part of the petitioner herein, in the opinion of this Court,
13
merely because petitioner has furnished an undertaking,
which is undated stereotyped and general in nature, the bank
authorities cannot be allowed to recover alleged excess
amount from petitioner.
16. The Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Jagdish
Prasad Dubey, reported in 2024 Vol.II MPLJ 198, has
observed that undertaking given by an employee or obtained
by the employer is not enforceable.
17. The Division Bench of this Court in WA No.264/2020 (State of
CG vs Labha Ram Dhruv), decided on 22.9.2021, while
considering the issue of undertaking, has held that giving of
such an undertaking is not a voluntary act and recovery on
that basis, therefore, cannot be sustained. Relevant portion
of decision in Labha Ram‘s case (supra) reads thus:-
“9.In the case at hand, the Revision of Pay Rules,
2009 and 2017 do not make any enabling provision
reserving option for the employer to seek refund of
the amount paid in excess, by making the employee
to furnish an undertaking. Even if we conclude, for
the sake of arguments, that even in the absence of
enabling provision under the Rules, undertaking
given by the employee would operate, the fact
remains that against the classes of employees
against whom recovery would be impermissible in
law, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
14matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), recovery from the
employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV
service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service) would
still be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that
even when undertaking is submitted by the
employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III and
Class-IV service, and the amount has been paid
more than 5 years back, the law declared by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih
(Supra) would still hold the field in favour of such
employees, because the judgment in the matter of
Rafiq Masih (Supra) has not been overruled, but only
clarified, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its later
judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra”
18. Needless to mention here that a pensioner receives pension
on the bona fide belief that amount credited to his/her account
has been correctly calculated by the competent authorities.
After years of continuous payment, pensioner arranges his
financial affairs and day-to-day expenses on the assumption
that the amount received is lawfully payable. Thus, any
attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause
undue hardship to him. Hence, I am of the considered view
that any recovery after lapse of long period would cause
undue hardship to petitioner; therefore, it would be iniquitous
if this Court does not extend protection to him.
15
19. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, writ petition is
allowed. Impugned order dated 24.8.2023 (Annexure P-1) is
hereby set aside. Original Application is allowed and the
notice dated 14.6.2016 (Annexure P-1 in original application)
is quashed. Respondents are directed not to recover any
amount from the pension of petitioner. Respondent-Bank is
directed to refund the entire amount to petitioner which has
been recovered within a period of 04 months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
roshan/-
