interruption in his service in terms of FR 17A. If according to the petitioners, it was a misconduct on the part of the respondent, he should have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings before resorting to this action. Moreover, the petitioners have calculated the overpayment made to the respondent as Rs.1,81,461/-. However, as per the petitioners own records, the respondent was present on all the 97 days which were treated as „unauthorized absence‟. There was no record to show the alleged duration of his absence on each of those days he attended the Tribunal/Court. Moreover, the order of recovery was issued on 30.12.2014 and the respondent was due for his retirement on 31.07.2015. The respondent was not entitled for any pension. Reliance was placed on State of Punjab and others v Rafiq Masih’s (White Washer) etc. , AIR 2015 SC 1267, wherein the question for consideration before the Supreme Court in bunch of cases was the private respondents who were the beneficiaries of a mistake committed by the employer on account of unintentional mistake and the employees were in receipt of monetary benefit beyond their dues, whether the private respondents against whom an order of recovery of the excess amount has been made, should be exempted in law, from the reimbursement of the same to the employer. After a detailed discussion, it was observed that it was 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. The following situations were, however, summarized wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
