Pay may be refixed, but recovery of excess payments from a retired employee is impermissible.

The petitioner was appointed as a Rig Helper on 14 March 1989 in the pay scale of Rs.505–945.

The Board later redesignated Rig Helpers holding ITI qualifications as Assistant Drillers and prescribed a scale of Rs.950–1500; the petitioner was redesignated accordingly.

The Board subsequently refixed his pay, taking the view that the earlier fixation was erroneous, and ordered recovery of the excess salary paid.

The petitioner challenged the refixation and recovery orders, seeking implementation of an earlier order dated 23 January 2014.

By the time of judgment, he had retired from service.

Whether the Board was entitled to refix the petitioner’s pay to correct an allegedly erroneous fixation, having regard to his appointment terms and the applicable Board Proceedings.

Whether the Board could recover the excess salary paid to the petitioner, who had retired from service.

The Court held that an employee’s admissible pay is determined by the appointment terms, the post to which the employee was appointed, and the applicable Board Proceedings.

Possession of a higher qualification, by itself, does not confer a right to a higher pay scale absent promotion or an employer-directed refixation.

The authorities may correct an erroneous pay fixation, and the Court stated that no time limit applied to such correction.

However, recovery of excess salary may be impermissible where, in the circumstances of the case, it would cause hardship to a retired employee.

The petitioner’s appointment was made after B.P. No. 505 dated 12 December 1986, and the Court found that the applicable pay had to be assessed by reference to his appointment and the post held, rather than by relying on that Board Proceeding to claim a higher scale.

It concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the scale prescribed for the redesignated Assistant Driller post under B.P. No. 547, and that the higher pay had resulted from an erroneous fixation that the Board could correct.

Separately, because the petitioner had retired and recovery would cause hardship, the Court set aside the recovery order.

The writ petition was partly allowed.

The respondents were directed to settle any outstanding terminal and pensionary benefits within twelve weeks of receiving the order.