PARMAR NARAN BHAI RUPA BHAI & ORS. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~117 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12560/2024 & CM APPL. 52230/2024 PARMAR NARAN BHAI RUPA BHAI & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava, Mr. Satyaarth Sinha and Ms. Shradha Mewati, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC Mr. Jitendra Gautam, CRPF/RAF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER (ORAL) % 09.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 9 August 2024 issued on the basis of an audit objection whereunder various amounts were directed to be recovered from the petitioners as having been overpaid to them during the year 2015-18. 2. The recovery is in the teeth of categories (i) and (iii) of para 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq W.P.(C) 12560/2024 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.12.2025 18:55:09 Masih1 which proscribes recoveries from Group C and Group D employees and further proscribes recoveries in excess of payments made in excess of five years prior to the date of order of recovery. On both these counts, the impugned recoveries cannot sustain. 3. The only two circumstances in which the rigour of para 18 of Rafiq Masih does not apply are set out in the subsequent decisions in High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh2 and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala3. They are if, at the time when the excess payments were made, an undertaking was taken from the employee concerned, agreeing to pay back any excess payments if they were found to be in excess later, or where the employee concerned was herself, or himself, complicit in ensuring that excess payments were made to her, or him. Neither of these circumstances