Excess salary paid through employer error cannot be recovered after prolonged delay absent employee misrepresentation.

The petitioner, appointed as a copyist in 1998 and later promoted to Sheristadar, received excess pay of ₹1,01,946 between 1 October 2020 and 31 July 2026 due to an erroneous pay fixation.

The second respondent issued a show-cause notice concerning recovery and re-fixation of pay, which the petitioner challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Court recorded that the pay revision followed an audit objection and that the respondents had not established misrepresentation by the petitioner

Whether the respondents could revise the petitioner’s pay to correct an erroneous fixation under the applicable pay rules

Whether recovery of the excess pay was permissible where the error was attributable to the establishment and the employee had not misrepresented any facts

The Court recognised that competent authorities may correct erroneous pay fixation and revise pay in accordance with applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders

It also applied the principles in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which identify circumstances in which recovery of excess payments may be impermissible, including where recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary and outweigh the employer’s equitable right to recover

The Court further relied on the principle that an employee should not be penalised for an establishment’s pay-fixation error, particularly where recovery after a lapse of time would cause extreme hardship

The Court distinguished between correcting the pay fixation and recovering amounts already paid.

It found that the revision was supported by the audit objection and applicable pay rules, but that the excess payment resulted from an establishment error and was not shown to have been procured by the petitioner’s misrepresentation

In those circumstances, recovery would cause undue hardship; applying Rafiq Masih, the Court upheld the revised pay fixation but disallowed recovery

The revision of pay was confirmed, but recovery of the excess pay was set aside; any amount already recovered was directed to be repaid to the petitioner within 12 weeks of receipt of the order

No costs were awarded