ORDER : In this batch of petitions, challenge has been laid to the orders / notices of recovery either on the allegation that the petitioners had overdrawn, whether as advances or part final / final withdrawal from their General Provident Fund (GPF) Account or were paid emoluments, during their service more than their entitlement. In some cases, petitioners had earlier approached this Court seeking direction for consideration of their claims for payment of salary / increments which were disposed off with direction for examination of the claims and thereafter, they were held entitled to higher pay and paid but then the order / notice issued. In some of the cases, recovery has already been made. In all these petitions, order / notice of recovery has been challenged on number of grounds which also include those amounts which are common to all the cases. Consideration of this Court is confined to those common grounds which have been raised in all these petitions. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in aforesaid petitions contended that once the employee has retired, recovery is not permissible and whatever amount has been paid to a retired employee, cannot be recovered in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, 2015 (4) SCC 334 . Next submission is that even if it is held that in certain limited circumstances, the power of recovery is available, the same could not be effected without giving due and proper opportunity of hearing, obtaining reply, holding summary enquiry and then taking a decision. It is then contended that recovery of alleged excess payment / over-drawal from Provident Fund account would be permissible only in accordance with the provisions contained in M.P./C.G. Provident Fund Rules (Promulgated in the year 1955) and M.P./ CG Civil Services Pension Rules, 1966 (for short 'Pension Rules'). It is further submitted that under those rules, no recovery is permissible after maximum period of 12 months from the date of retirement. Further contention is that even if it is ultimately found in an enquiry that an employee, while in service, had taken advance or part final withdrawal from provident fund account, it could not be recovered from the monthly pension except in accordance with the mandate of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. Further contention is that even if it is ultimately found in an enquiry that an employee, while in service, had taken advance or part final withdrawal from provident fund account, it could not be recovered from the monthly pension except in accordance with the mandate of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. If the maximum period of time prescribed under Rule 9 has expired, under no circumstances, recovery could be made from pension which also includes Gratuity. Undertaking, if any, given either at the time of receiving higher pay or at the time of taking advances or part withdrawal from provident fund or at the time of retirement, would not entitle the respondents to make recovery at any point of time and in such cases, where no recovery is made within a reasonable period, in the spirit of order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), no recovery would be permissible as the same would have the effect of causing extreme hardship to a retired Government servant who has to depend upon a paltry sum for his survival and existence. In support of the submission so made, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.357/2016 decided on 06/03/2017 and judgment of this Court in WPS No.3705/2017 and batch of petitions (Vinod Sinha and others v. State of Chhattisgarh) decided on 21/11/2017. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the Accountant General, Chhattisgarh have replied by submitting that judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) will not be applicable in the present case as those were cases relating to excess payment of salary more than entitlement under the law. In so far as recovery on account of excess drawal made from provident fund is concerned, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is not applicable because these withdrawals were not only unauthorised under the Rules but also fully known to the employees because they are in possession of GPF pass books and they fully knew as to how much amount was lying to their credit in their respective provident fund accounts. Withdrawal of huge amount much more than the total amount in their fund, only shows that the employee misrepresented by seeking withdrawal as if they had sufficient amount to their credit in the provident fund accounts. Due to negligence of the concerned competent authority, withdrawals were never reconciled till their retirement and it was only later on, all these provident fund accounts were verified. After due examination of adjustment of entries of withdrawals with deposits in the GPF passbooks, it was revealed that in many cases, huge amount which were much more than the total amount of provident fund which an employee was entitled to receive at the time of his retirement, had been withdrawn by the employee. Learned counsel for the State submits that all the petitioners have rushed to the Court without giving their suitable reply and satisfying the authority that the said recovery was factually incorrect and that they had not withdrawn the amount in excess of amount to their credit in their provident fund account. 4. I have considered rival submissions of all the parties and perused records. Only those pleadings which were filed by the parties till the cases were reserved for orders have been taken into consideration. 5. In all those cases, where challenge has been made to the recovery orders / notices proposing to make recovery on the ground of excess drawals from the provident fund account, it has been very vehemently contended before this Court that in view of the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), after retirement, no recovery would be permissible under any circumstances, even if it is accepted that any over-drawal was made by the employee while in service or after his retirement. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), factual backdrop in which the issue came up for consideration before Their Lordships in the Supreme Court has been set out in the opening paragraphs as below - “All the private respondents in the present bunch of cases, were given monetary benefits, which were in excess of their entitlement. These benefits flowed to them, consequent upon a mistake committed by the competent authority concerned, in determining the emoluments payable to them. These benefits flowed to them, consequent upon a mistake committed by the competent authority concerned, in determining the emoluments payable to them. The mistake could have occurred on account of a variety of reasons; including the grant of a status, which the employee concerned was not entitled to; or payment of salary in a higher scale, than in consonance of the right of the employee concerned; or because of a wrongful fixation of salary of the employee, consequent upon the upward revision of pay-scales; or for having been granted allowances, for which the employee concerned was not authorized. The long and short of the matter is, that all the private respondents were beneficiaries of a mistake committed by the employer, and on account of the said unintentional mistake, employees were in receipt of monetary benefits, beyond their due.” Further more, the class of employee who had approached the Supreme Court were those who were not guilty of furnishing any information which had led the competent authority concerned to commit mistake of making higher payment to the employees. This would be clear from the following paragraph of the said judgment which also relevant, is extracted herein below - “2. Another essential factual component in this bunch of cases is that the respondent employees were not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information, which had led the competent authority concerned, to commit the mistake of making the higher payment to the employees. The payment of higher dues to the private respondents, in all these cases, was not on account of any misrepresentation made by them, nor was it on account of any fraud committed by them. Any participation of the private respondents, in the mistake committed by the employer, in extending the undeserved monetary benefits to the respondent employees, is totally ruled out. It would, therefore, not be incorrect to record, that the private respondents, were as innocent as their employers, in the wrongful determination of their inflated emoluments.” It would thus be clear that before the Supreme Court were those employees, who during their service were paid higher emoluments on account of certain mistake in arriving at their pay fixation, emoluments, allowances etc. and those employees were not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information. and those employees were not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information. Various decisions which fell for consideration in the aforesaid decision were all relating to recovery made on the ground that while in service, the Government servant were given salary, more than their entitlement under the law. None of the cases related to a case of over-drawal from the provident fund account. A distinction has to be drawn where recovery is sought to be effected from an in-service or a retired employee on the ground that due to some mistake, not attributable to the employee, excess payments have been made and in those cases, where an employee had been withdrawing either as advance or part final withdrawal, money from provident fund account. Creation of provident fund is statutory fund, is an attribute of public employment where in order to secure post retirement life, compulsory deductions are made from the salary with contributions through out the service so that, at the time of retirement, a Government Servant gets a substantial amount in his hand so as to cater to his post retirement needs which include construction of house, marriages and other plans which may involve payment of lump sum amount. It does not form part of his emoluments nor can it be said that while in service, he was paid salary, though by mistake by the employer, which he consumed and after that, if allowed to be recovered, it would result in grave hardship which appears to be the guiding spirit behind the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). An employee fully knows as to how much amount is lying to his credit in the GPF account. If he makes over-drawals from the said account, no equity lies in his favour to later on contend that he should not be saddled with liability of repayment of the sum merely because he is a retired employee. Therefore, in my considered opinion, directions issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of recoveries in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) are not applicable to those cases where recoveries have been ordered on account of over drawal from the provident fund account. 6. Therefore, in my considered opinion, directions issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of recoveries in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) are not applicable to those cases where recoveries have been ordered on account of over drawal from the provident fund account. 6. Provident fund of an employee is constituted and administered in accordance with the provisions of M.P. General Provident Fund Rules framed by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which have come into force on 1st of April, 1955. Rule 9 provides for subscription as below - “9. Subscribers' Accounts - An account shall be opened in the name of each subscriber, in which shall be shown- (i) his subscriptions; (ii) interest, as provided sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 on subscription; (iii) bonus, as provided by rule 14-A on subscription; and (iv) advances and withdrawals from the Fund.” Account is required to be maintained under Rule 9. Apart from details regarding subscription interest, bonus it is also required to record advances and withdrawals from the fund. Rule 14 (7) authorise the authorities recovery, where subscribers have drawn from the fund, an amount in excess of amount standing to his credit on the date of drawal whether the over-drawal has occurred in the course of advance or withdrawal or the final payment from the fund. The relevant rule is quoted herein below - “14 (7). In case a subscriber is found to have drawn from the fund an amount in excess of the amount standing to his credit on the date of the drawal, the overdrawn amount, irrespective of whether the over-drawal occurred in the course of an advance or a withdrawal or the final payment from the fund, shall be repaid by him with interest thereon, in one lump sum, or in default, be ordered to be recovered by deduction in one lump sum, from the emoluments of the subscriber. If the total amount to be recovered is more than half of the subscriber's emoluments, recoveries shall be made in monthly instalments of moieties of his emoluments till the entire amount together with interest, is recovered. For this rule the rate of interest to be charged on overdrawn amount would be 2 1/2 % over and above the normal rate of Provident Fund balances under sub-rule (1). For this rule the rate of interest to be charged on overdrawn amount would be 2 1/2 % over and above the normal rate of Provident Fund balances under sub-rule (1). The interest realised on the overdrawn amount shall be credited to Government account under a distinct sub-head "Interest on overdrawn form Provident Fund.” Rule 15 deals with the provisions with regard to advances from the fund and Rule 16 inter alia provides that recovery of all the advances shall be made in the manner prescribed under the Rules. Rule 16-A provides for sanction of withdrawals (not advances). Rule 16-C permits conversion of advances into withdrawals. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Provident Fund Rules reveals that the Rule under no circumstances permit withdrawal in excess of the amount lying to the credit of the employee on the date when he takes advance or withdrawals. This is in addition to various eligibility requirements for taking advance and withdrawals, specifically enumerated in the aforementioned rules. Where advances or withdrawals are found to have been made in excess of entitlement, Rule 14 (7) authorises recovery also. However, use of the word “emoluments” in Rule 14 (7) is quite significant as it discloses intent of the rule making authority. The word “emoluments” has not been defined in the General Provident Fund Rules. Rule 2 (b) provides that any other expression used in the Rule which is defined either in Provident Fund Act or in the Service Rules is used in the sense therein defined. Word “emoluments” has not been defined in the Provident Fund Act either. Therefore, meaning of the said word “emolument” has to be gathered from its definition as provided in M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 wherein, the word “emolument” has been defined as below - Rule 3 (d)- “Emoluments” means emoluments as defined in Rule 30; Rule 30 defines emoluments as below - “30. Emoluments. - The expression "emoluments" means pay as defined in Rule 9 (21) of the Fundamental Rules (including dearness pay, if any, as determined by the order of the Government issued from time to time) which a Government servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death, as the case may be. [Explanation. Emoluments. - The expression "emoluments" means pay as defined in Rule 9 (21) of the Fundamental Rules (including dearness pay, if any, as determined by the order of the Government issued from time to time) which a Government servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death, as the case may be. [Explanation. - (1) For those Government Servants, who are drawing pay in the revised pay scale, under the Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 or Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, or pay scales of U.G.C. or All India Council of Technical Education or All India Services the expression 'emoluments' means basic pay as defined in Rule 9 (21) (a) (i) of the Fundamental Rules, which a Government Servant was receiving immediately before his retirement and will also include dearness pay and personal pay, if any, as determined by the order of State Government, from time to time. (2) Bilinqual Allowance of Stenographers shall be treated as 'emoluments' for calculation of retirement benefits. (3) Special pay, if any, received in lieu of higher pay scale on promotion shall also be treated as 'emoluments' for calculation of retirement benefits.] [Note 1. - If a Government servant immediately before his retirement or death while in service had been absent from duty on leave for which leave salary is payable or having been suspended had been reinstated without forfeiture of service, the emoluments which he would have drawn had he not been absent from duty or suspended shall be the emoluments for the purposes of this rule. Note 2. - If a Government servant immediately before his retirement or death while in service had been absent from duty on extraordinary leave or had been under suspension, the period whereof does not count as service, the emoluments which he drew immediately before proceeding on such leave or being placed under suspension shall be the emoluments for the purposes of this rule. Note 3. Note 3. - If a Government servant immediately before his retirement or death while in service, was on earned leave, and earned an increment which was not withheld, such increment, though not actually drawn, shall form part of his emoluments : Provided that the increment was earned during the currency of the earned leave not exceeding one hundred and twenty days, or during the first one hundred and twenty days of earned leave where such leave was for more than one hundred and twenty days.] Note 4. - Pay drawn by a Government servant while on foreign service shall not be treated as emoluments, but the pay which he should have drawn under the Government had he not been on foreign service shall alone be treated as emoluments. Note 5. - Where a pensioner who is re-employed in Government service elects in terms of clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 17 or clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 to retain his pension for earlier service and whose pay on re-employment has been reduced by an amount not exceeding his pension, the element of pension by which his pay is reduced shall be treated as emoluments. [Note 6. - Where a Government servant has been transferred to an autonomous body consequent on the conversion of a department of the Government into such a body and the Government servant so transferred opts to retain the pensionary benefits under the rules of the Government, the emoluments drawn under the autonomous body shall be treated as emoluments for the purpose of this rule.]” 7. A bare reading of the said provision shows that the definition is exhaustive and not inclusive. It takes its colour from what has been defined in Rule 9 (21) of the Fundamental Rules which reads thus - “Rule 9(21)(a)- "Pay" means the amount drawn monthly by Government servant as- (i) the pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre, and (ii) overseas pay, technical pay, special pay and personal pay, and (iii) any other emoluments which may be specially classed as pay by the Governor -General in Council. (b) In the case of military officer, in receipt of the rates of pay introduced on July 1st, 1924, pay includes the amount which he receives monthly under the following designations :- (i) Pay of appointment, lodging allowance and marriage allowance, and (ii) Pay of rank, command pay, additional pay, Indian Army allowance, lodging allowance and marriage allowance. (c) In the case of a military officer, in receipt of the rates of pay in force before 1st July 1924, pay include the amount which be receives monthly under the following designations :- (i) Military pay and allowances and staff salary, (ii) Indian Army pay and staff salary, and (iii) Consolidated pay. In addition to the definition as provided in FR 9 (21), it includes dearness pay. It, however, does not include pension and there is nothing either in the Provident Fund Rules or in the Pension Rules to warrant that word “emoluments” as used in Rule 14 (7) of the Provident Fund Rules should be read as to include pension or any other retiral dues which an employee is entitled to or actually receives after his superannuation from service. Therefore, the scheme of Rule 14 (7) permits recovery only from the emoluments which an employee has been receiving while in service. Rule 14 (7), therefore, will have no application once an employee is retired. In the eventuality of retirement, the Government dues can be recovered from a retired employee under Rule 65 and Rule 66 of the Pension Rules which also being relevant are extracted herein below - “65. Recovery and adjustment of Government dues - (1) It shall be the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement. (2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear the Government dues and such dues are-ascertainable - (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him; or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dues shall be deducted. Explanation. - 1. The expression "ascertainable Government dues" includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income-tax deductible at source under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. 43 of 1961). 66. Explanation. - 1. The expression "ascertainable Government dues" includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income-tax deductible at source under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. 43 of 1961). 66. Furnishing of surety by retiring Government servant. - (1) (a) If any of the Government dues (other than those referred to in Rule 65 remain unrealised and unassessed for any reasons, the retiring Government servant may be asked to furnish in Form 8 a surety of a suitable permanent Government servant, holding a pensionable post. (b) If the surety furnished by him is found acceptable the grant of his pension and gratuity shall not be delayed. (2) (a) If the retiring Government servant is unable or unwilling to furnish a surety, a suitable cash deposit may be taken from him, or such portion of gratuity payable to him as may be considered sufficient may be held over till the outstanding dues are assessed and adjusted. (b) The cash deposit to be taken or the amount of gratuity to be withheld shall not exceed the estimated amount of the outstanding dues plus twenty-five per cent thereof. (c) Where it is not possible to estimate the approximate amount recoverable from the retiring Government servant the amount of deposit to be taken or the portion of gratuity to be withheld shall be limited to ten per cent of the amount of gratuity or one thousand rupees, whichever is less. (3) (a) Efforts shall be made to assess and adjust the recoverable Government dues within a period not exceeding six months from the date of retirement of the Government servant and, if no claim is made on Government account against the Government servant within such a period it shall be presumed that no Government claim excluding claim of house rent and water charges is outstanding against him. (b) The Government dues as assessed shall be adjusted against the cash deposit or the amount withheld from the gratuity and the balance, if any, shall be released to the retired Government servant after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a). (b) The Government dues as assessed shall be adjusted against the cash deposit or the amount withheld from the gratuity and the balance, if any, shall be released to the retired Government servant after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a). (c) Where a pensioner has furnished a surety, the surety shall be released after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a) provided the dues assessed up to that time have been recovered. (4) The Government dues which remain unrealised within the period referred to in clause (a) of sub-rule (3) and such other dues, the claim for which is received after that period, shall be recoverable from the retired Government servant through legal procedure : Provided that in respect of house rent and water charges, the amount, if any, the claim for which is received after the period of 12 months from the date of retirement of the Government servant shall not be recoverable from the retired Government servant.” Rule 65 obliges a retired Government Servant to clear all the Government dues. The word “Government dues” has not been defined in the said rule but the explanation added to Rule 65 gives an inclusive definition of ascertainable Government dues. Therefore, the meaning of Government dues is very wide and may include any amount which a retiring Government Servant is required to pay to the Government. On rational and logical interpretation of the word “Government Dues”, there is no reason why excess drawals made from the GPF account should not be included within the meaning of the said term. Therefore, where an employee has overdrawn amount from his GPF account, more than the amount lying to his credit in the Provident Fund, while in service, recovery may be made in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 14 (7) of the Provident Fund Rules but if recovery could not be made and the Government Servant has not deposited the said amount which has been overdrawn and retires, Rule 65 and Rule 66 of the Pension Rules will come into play obliging the Government Servant to pay Government dues. But then, the authority to recover under Rule 66 of the Pension Rules has limitation in terms of the period under which power could be exercised as is reflected from the provisions contained in Rule 66 (4) of the Pension Rules which ordains that the Government dues which remain unrealised within the period referred to in Clause (a) of Sub Rule 3 and such other dues, the claim for which is received after that period, shall be recoverable from the retired Government Servant through legal procedure. The maximum period prescribed under clause (a) of Sub Rule 3 is six months. Within the said period, it is permissible to adjust the recoverable dues against cash deposits or the amount withheld from the Gratuity. The proviso to Sub Rule 4 carves out an exception in respect of house rent and water charges, period under which recovery could be made, would be 12 months. 8. Thus, from the statutory scheme of Provident Fund Rules and Pension Rules as discussed herein above, statutory power to recover is circumscribed and fettled with certain statutory prescription. As long as the employee is in service, recovery from emoluments would be permissible and after retirement, such recovery can be made by making appropriate adjustment from various dues which the employee would be receiving at the time of his retirement or the amount of cash deposits taken from the employee at the time of his retirement. The significant aspect which needs to be noticed is that if the period of 6 months / 12 months expires, the only mode permissible under the law to effect recovery would be through legal procedure as provided under Rule 66 (4) of the Pension Rules. 9. In so far as pension is concerned, it is granted as also protected under the Pension Rules of 1976. The pension could be withheld or withdrawn in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 9 and not otherwise. The authority, by whom, it could be done, the circumstances under which it could be done and the procedure which is required to be followed as also limitations on such power to withhold or withdraw in terms of period within which it is permissible have been delineated in the aforesaid rule. The authority, by whom, it could be done, the circumstances under which it could be done and the procedure which is required to be followed as also limitations on such power to withhold or withdraw in terms of period within which it is permissible have been delineated in the aforesaid rule. Therefore, if on the grounds enumerated in Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, the competent authority decides to withdraw or withhold pension, recourse has to be taken to Rule 9 and it could not be done by executive fiat de hors the statutory power conferred on the Governor under the said rule. 10. In none of the cases in hand, the respondents have come out with a case that towards effecting recovery, any order has been passed by the Governor, if at all it were permissible, under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. It is apparent that in certain scrutinies made, the authorities claimed to have found that the petitioners in present cases, who are either retired employees receiving pension or nominees of the retired employees who died after retirement receiving family pension, it was found that the Government employee, while in service, had withdrawn amount more than what he was entitled to receive as Provident Fund amount at the time of his retirement from service. There are many cases where negative balance show lakhs of rupees resulting in huge recovery proposed under impugned orders / notices. During the course of arguments, it was contended by learned counsel for all the respondents that Provident Fund Account, GPF pass books were scrutinized and various entries made with regard to deposits, withdrawals etc. were also looked into and then finally, when it was found that subscriber Provident Fund Accounts are showing negative balance, impugned notices were issued. If that be so, looking to the fact that the petitioners are retired employees and that huge amount is proposed to be recovered against them, it ought to proceed with an enquiry, though summary in nature, by affording opportunity of hearing. Though in all notices, the petitioners have been asked to deposit the amount mentioned in the notices, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that these are only notices proposing recoveries and if the retired employee / or the nominee who is receiving family pension has any defence on law or on facts, they can submit reply. Though in all notices, the petitioners have been asked to deposit the amount mentioned in the notices, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that these are only notices proposing recoveries and if the retired employee / or the nominee who is receiving family pension has any defence on law or on facts, they can submit reply. But instead of giving proper reply to satisfy the authority that negative balance showing are not correct, the petitioners have approached the Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, all the petitioners are entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the notices / recovery orders are given effect to. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to submit their individual responses / objections to the proposed recovery before the authority who issued them notices. The authority who issued recovery letter shall duly examine the reply, verify the records and subject to permissibility under the Rules may pass orders in accordance with law. While taking decision in the matter of individual petitioner, legal position, as adumbrated herein above shall be kept in view to decide the permissibility of recovery one way or the other. Each of the petitioners would be at liberty to file their respective response within a period of 12 weeks from today. The authority must take a decision in the matter within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of response. A copy of this order shall necessarily be placed before the authority along with response / objection / reply. The authority would be obliged to pass a speaking order. 11. In so far as those cases where recovery is being made from a retired employee on the ground that they were paid salary, allowances, increments etc. while in service, in excess of their entitlement, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) is squarely applicable. Their cases will have to be decided keeping in view the direction issued in para 18 of the said judgment. Needless to say, as provided in (i) of para 18 of the said judgment, recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service would be wholly impermissible and no recovery shall be made from them. In respect of cases governed in other cases, due examination of individual facts would be necessary. Needless to say, as provided in (i) of para 18 of the said judgment, recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service would be wholly impermissible and no recovery shall be made from them. In respect of cases governed in other cases, due examination of individual facts would be necessary. Furthermore, in cases, undertakings have been given, recovery would be permissible though after affording opportunity of hearing in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors. v. Jagdev Singh, AIR 2016 SC 3523 , wherein exception to proposition (ii) of para 18 of Rafiq Masih's case was carved out as below - “11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.” 12. All the petitions are accordingly allowed in the manner and to the extent stated herein above.