P ALPA BEN & ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19025/2025, CM APPL. 79253/2025 & CM APPL. 79254/2025 P ALPA BEN & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava, Mr. Satyaarth Sinha, Ms. Shradha Mewati, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ravindra Vikram Singh, SPC for R1 to R3 Insp Athurv And Mr. Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF 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 learned Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of without calling for any response. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 9 August 2024 whereby recovery of overpayment of salary allegedly for the year 2015-18 has been effected. 3. The order has been passed without any prior 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) 19025/2025 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 imper