ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs : "(i) That, the impugned order Annex.P/1 may kindly be held to be illegal and be quashed. (ii) That, further respondents may kindly be directed to extend the all service pensionary benefit to the petitioner with interest further making proper fixation. (iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has retired from the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer w.e.f. Afternoon of 31.08.2020. After his retirement, the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 was issued thereby directing for recovery of Rs.86,298/-which according to the respondents was paid erroneously in excess to what the petitioner was entitled. According to this order, the excess payment was made w.e.f. January, 1996 onwards. Out of total amount of Rs.86,298/- sought to be recovered by the respondents, the principal amount was Rs.49,735/- and the interest amount was Rs.36,560/-. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is duly covered by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and submitted that any excess payment made by the respondents without there being any misrepresentation cannot be recovered and the petitioner was holding the Class III post. 3. The respondents have filed their return and they have submitted that the payment was made after obtaining due undertaking from the petitioner and thus, the case is duly covered by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The only question for consideration is as to whether the excess payment from the month of January, 1996 was made to the petitioner after obtaining due undertaking from him or not. 5. The respondents have relied upon the undertaking, which has been filed as Annexure R-1. This undertaking is dated 31.03.1990 and was given in respect of re-fixation of pay scale in the light of revision of pay scale dated 01.01.1986. The undertaking dated 31.03.1990 given by the petitioner reads as under:- 6. 5. The respondents have relied upon the undertaking, which has been filed as Annexure R-1. This undertaking is dated 31.03.1990 and was given in respect of re-fixation of pay scale in the light of revision of pay scale dated 01.01.1986. The undertaking dated 31.03.1990 given by the petitioner reads as under:- 6. Thus, it is clear that the aforesaid undertaking was given in respect of the payment, which was released in the light of revision of pay scale dated 01.01.1986, whereas in the present case the recovery has been initiated for the reason that the excess payment was made from January, 1996. The respondents have not filed any document to show that any undertaking was taken from the petitioner prior to making payment of pay scale from January, 1996. The undertaking given on 31.03.1990 was specifically in respect of the revision of pay scale sanctioned by order dated 01.01.1986 and the said undertaking cannot be said to be an undertaking in perpetuity thereby applying the same to all the subsequent revision of pay scales. 7. In absence of specific undertaking by the petitioner before making payment of salary w.e.f. January, 1996. This Court is of the considered opinion that the amount cannot be recovered from the petitioner on the said basis. 8. As the facts of the case are distinguishable, therefore, in the opinion of this court the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) would not be applicable. Since the case in hand is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and the petitioner belongs to Class III cadre, the impugned order dated 29.10.2020 cannot be given the stamp of judicial approval. 9. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the interim order dated 21.09.2020, the respondents have not released the entire retiral dues. This fact is also apparent from the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as mentioned in order dated 30.11.2021. Since the payment has been withheld in spite of the interim order dated 10.12.2020, therefore, it is directed that the arrear shall carry the interest @ 6% from the date of their actual accrual till the date of actual payment. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 29.10.2020 is hereby quashed. The petition succeeds. No order as to costs.