GULVIR SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19033/2025, CM APPL. 79264/2025 & CM APPL. 79265/2025 GULVIR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Mr. Abhay Singh, Mr. Saurabh, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shashank Bajpai, CGSC with Mr. Sambhav Sharma, GP and Ms. Aashna Mehra, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGEMENT (ORAL) % 16.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. With consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of without calling for any response. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 10 September 2025 whereby recovery of overpayment of salary allegedly since 01.01.2006 i.e., for over 19 years has been effected. 3. The order has been passed without any show cause notice to the petitioner and, therefore, violates the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India1. 1 (1994) 6 SCC 154 Signature Not Verified Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 19033/2025 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:19.12.2025 10:49:49 4. Besides the recovery is in the teeth of clauses (i) and (iii) of para 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih2, which prohibit recovery more than five years after the alleged excess payment and prohibits recovery from Group C and Group D employees. For ready reference, para 18 of Rafiq Masih may be reproduced, thus: “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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermi