Ex-Inspector Sanjay Kumar v. Govind Mohan and Ors

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL):

¶1The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 31st July, 2025, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 13183/2023, wherein, directions were issued in the following manner: "1. This writ petition assails order dated 2 August 2023, whereby the petitioner's pay was retrospectively refixed, as well as the recoveries made from his retiral benefits as a result thereof.

¶2The petitioner, who was employed as an Inspector in the Border Security Force 1, retired from service on 7 July 2023.

¶3After his retirement, the respondent issued order dated 2 August 2023, downwardly revising his pay scale with effect from 1 July 2009. As a result, his pay on the date of his retirement, on 1 July 2023, immediately prior to his retirement, also stood

downwardly reversed to ₹ 60,400/- per month.

¶4There is no dispute that the order dated 2 August 2023 was issued without any prior notice to the petitioner.

¶5Following the issuance of the aforesaid order, the last pay certificate of the petitioner dated 29 August 2023 was issued, proposing to effect recoveries from the petitioner.

¶6Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition on 6 October 2023.

¶7During the pendency of this writ petition, by order dated 19 February 2025, the respondent reversed the impugned decisions dated 2 August 2023 and 29 August 2023 and revised the pay of the petitioner as on 1 July 2023 to ₹ 64,100/-. The amounts recovered by the petitioner were repaid to him after the passing of the aforesaid order.

¶8Mr. Jangra submits that, therefore, the dispute survives at present only with respect to the petitioner's entitlement to interest on the withheld amount from 7 July 2023 till it came to be paid after the passing of the order dated 19 February 2025.

¶9In view of the passing of the order dated 19 February 2025, there can be no dispute that, in fact, the downward refixation of the petitioner's pay by order dated 2 August 2023 was not in accordance with law. Besides, the such downward fixation without any notice to the petitioner is in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the following passage from Bhagwan Shukla v UOI2 and is ex facie unsustainable:

¶10As such, the order dated 2 August 2023 as well as the PPO dated 29 August 2023 are quashed and set aside.

¶11Mr. Avnish Singh, learned SPC for the respondents, has drawn our attention to an undertaking which was given by the petitioner on 21 April 2023, which reads thus:

¶12The aforesaid undertaking can be of no avail to the respondent.

¶13The judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih3, in para 18, absolutely proscribes recoveries of payments allegedly overpaid to an employee in the following cases:

¶14An undertaking given by an employee, from whom recoveries is proposed, has been regarded, in the judgment of the Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana v Jagdev Singh4, to dilute the rigour of para 18 of Rafiq Masih in the case of recoveries being made from pensionary benefits, as in the present case. However, the undertaking has to be provided by the employee in the first instance, while opting for the revised

pay scale. This is clear from para 11 of Jagdev Singh:

¶15An undertaking taken at the point of making recoveries is, therefore, of no avail. In fact, the wording of the undertaking, on which Mr. Avnish Singh places reliance, is also significant. The petitioner has undertaken not only to raise any objection to the recoveries but also not to approach any court of law in that regard. An undertaking which, thus, forecloses legal remedies is, to our mind, ex facie unenforceable at law. In the realm of contract law, such an undertaking would be void, as infracting Section 285 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

¶16The undertaking, on the face of it, is provided under compulsion, if not duress.

¶17Even otherwise, Jagdev Singh is clear that the undertaking has to be given at the time when the erroneous fixation of pay took place and not at any later point of time.

¶18In that view of the matter, the undertaking dated 21 April 2023 provided by the petitioner cannot be cited as a defence by the respondents.

¶19The Supreme Court has held, in S.K. Dua v State of Haryana6, that an employee is entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits:

¶20In view thereof, the petitioner's entitlement to interest on the amount which was withheld from him for the period from 7 July 2023 till it was paid after the passing of the order dated 19 February 2025 cannot be gainsaid.

¶21Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to disburse interest, at the rate of 8% per annum, to the petitioner on the amount which was withheld from his retiral benefits after 7 July 2023 till they were paid after the passing of the order dated 19 February 2025 within a period of 12 weeks from today.

¶22The respondents are also directed to issue a revised PPO in favour of the petitioner in the above terms." (Emphasis Supplied)

¶2Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Compliance Affidavit dated 07th May, 2026, has been filed by the

respondents.

¶3In the Compliance Affidavit, the following, inter alia, is recorded: "xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx"

¶4Along with the said Compliance Affidavit, a revised Pension Payment Order ("PPO") dated 24th April, 2025 has also been attached, which is reproduced as under:

¶5This Court notes the statement made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has not received any physical copy of the revised PPO.

¶6In response, learned counsel for the respondents has handed over to

this Court, certain documents to show that the payments, as per the revised PPO, are being released to the petitioner.

¶7The said documents are taken on record.

¶8Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions of the Commandant, Border Security Force ("BSF"), who is present in Court, submits that the revised pension shall be duly reflected in the PPO document, as per the procedure.

¶9The aforesaid statement is taken on record.

¶10No further orders are required to be passed in the present petition.

¶11The present petition is accordingly, disposed of.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 20, 2026 ak

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 20th August, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC011065462025 + CONT.CAS(C) 1997/2025 EX-INSPECTOR SANJAY KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M.D. Jangra, Advocate Mob: 8130839698 Email: jangsmd@gmail.com versus GOVIND MOHAN AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Latika Malhotra, SPC for UOI with Mr. Brijpal Singh, Commandant, UOI, BSF Mob: 9811895162 Email: latika.malhotra@gmail.com CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA