Excess-pay recovery is impermissible for longstanding employer error absent employee misrepresentation.

The petitioner was appointed as a Copyist in 2007 and was later promoted as Head Clerk.

Following an Internal Audit Wing objection to her pay fixation, the second respondent ordered recovery of the alleged excess payment.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to prevent recovery from her salary.

The respondents did not establish that the petitioner had misrepresented any facts in connection with the pay fixation.

1. Whether the respondents could revise the petitioner’s pay fixation following an audit objection.

2. Whether recovery of the excess salary was permissible where the error was attributable to the establishment, the petitioner had not misrepresented facts, and recovery after a long period would cause hardship.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may review the legality of an administrative recovery order.

The Court relied on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which identifies circumstances in which recovery of mistaken excess payments may be impermissible, including recovery for payments made over a period exceeding five years and cases where recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary and outweigh the employer’s equitable right to recover.

The Court also recognised that authorities may correct an erroneous pay fixation and grant the pay properly due under the applicable rules and government orders, while distinguishing that power from recovery of past excess payments.

The Court found that the pay-fixation error was committed by the establishment and that the respondents had not shown any misrepresentation by the petitioner.

Given the lapse of many years and the hardship that recovery would cause, it held that recovery was impermissible under the principles in Rafiq Masih.

The Court nevertheless confirmed that any pay revision made in accordance with the applicable rules and government orders could stand.

Any amount already recovered from the petitioner was directed to be repaid within 12 weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.

The pay revision, if made pursuant to the audit objection, was left undisturbed.