Gratuity paid in excess due to computational error remains recoverable to prevent unjust enrichment of the payee.

The petitioner’s husband, initially appointed as an unskilled laborer in 1978, was regularized in 2008 and died in harness on August 28, 2021.

Following his death, the respondent authorities released a gratuity amount of ₹6,84,990 to the petitioner on November 17, 2021.

Upon subsequent verification of service records, the competent authority detected a computational error, determining that the admissible gratuity was only ₹48,046.

The respondents issued communications dated April 28, 2026, and May 15, 2026, seeking a refund of the excess payment amounting to ₹6,36,944 to finalize the pension case.

The petitioner challenged these recovery orders via the present writ petition.

1. Whether the recovery of excess gratuity paid due to a computational error is permissible from the widow of a deceased employee after a lapse of five years.

2. Whether the protection against recovery laid down in State of Punjab Ors. v. Rafiq Masih is applicable to the facts of the present case.

Principles governing the recovery of erroneous payments out of the public exchequer and the precedent established in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which restricts recovery from certain classes of employees when such recovery would be iniquitous or harsh.

The doctrine against unjust enrichment, emphasizing that public funds belong to the exchequer and authorities are duty-bound to rectify patent clerical or computational errors.

The Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1979.

The Court reasoned that the excess payment of ₹6,36,944 was the result of a "patent computational error" rather than a legal entitlement.

While the petitioner relied on the Rafiq Masih judgment to argue that recovery from a widow after five years is impermissible, the Court found this contention inapplicable under the specific circumstances where the error was purely clerical and discovered during record verification.

The Court noted that the petitioner failed to dispute the department's calculation or provide evidence justifying her entitlement to the higher amount.

Consequently, the Court held that allowing the petitioner to retain the funds would result in "unjust enrichment" at the cost of the public exchequer.

It was determined that the state has an inherent duty to rectify such mistakes to ensure the proper disbursement of public money.

The Court answered the issues by stating that the petitioner has no statutory or legal right to retain money paid due to a clerical error.

The Court upheld the impugned communications and directed that no interference was warranted under writ jurisdiction. Petition dismissed.