MP HC Sets Aside ₹1.16 Lakh Recovery From Retired In-Charge ASI Over 2006 Pay Fixation, Orders Refund With 6% Interest If Deducted

The petitioner, appointed as a Constable in 1984 and later promoted to Head Constable and In-charge Assistant Sub-Inspector, retired on 29 February 2024.

On review of his service book, the authorities found an alleged erroneous pay fixation dating from 1 January 2006 and ordered recovery of ₹1,15,967.

The petitioner challenged the recovery, arguing that he was a Class-III employee, had not caused the error, and had not been given a hearing.

The State relied on an undertaking to repay any excess payment.

The judgment refers to the impugned order as dated 22 April 2025, while later stating that recovery was initiated on 21 May 2024.

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

In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, recovery is ordinarily impermissible, among other situations, from Class-III/Class-IV employees, retired employees, and where the excess payment was made more than five years before the recovery order.

The Full Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, (2024) 2 M.P.L.J. 198, held that an undertaking given when a pay benefit is granted may support recovery if voluntary, but a later undertaking obtained at the stage of retirement cannot be enforced to recover the consequences of an old pay refixation; it also addressed recovery under Rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1976.

The Court also referred to Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack, 2025 (3) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 25, concerning recovery from retired ministerial employees where no fraud or misrepresentation was shown and no hearing was afforded.

The alleged excess payment arose from pay fixation dating to January 2006, and the petitioner had retired before recovery was pursued.

He was an In-charge Assistant Sub-Inspector holding a Class-III post. Those circumstances brought the case within the categories identified in Rafiq Masih in which recovery is impermissible.

Although the State relied on an undertaking, the record did not establish that it had been given voluntarily when the pay was fixed; the Court therefore held it could not validate recovery.

The recovery was accordingly illegal.

If that amount had been recovered from the petitioner’s retiral dues, the respondents were directed to refund it with interest at 6% per annum from the date of retirement until payment; if no recovery had been made, no refund or interest was payable.

The directions were to be complied with within three months of receipt of the certified order, failing which the amount would carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of entitlement until payment.

The petition was disposed of.