Pay refixation upheld, but recovery of excess salary already made is set aside.

The respondent, a retired Sub-Inspector of Police, challenged an order of the competent authority correcting an error in the fixation of his pay and directing recovery of excess salary paid to him.

In W.P. No. 32084 of 2025, the learned Single Judge set aside the recovery and directed the authorities to refund the excess amount already recovered; the authorities were also directed to reconsider and refix the respondent’s pay after taking his case into account.

The State authorities filed the present intra-court appeal against that order.

1. Whether the competent authority’s refixation of the respondent’s pay, undertaken in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders, required further reconsideration or could be confirmed by the appellate court

2. Whether recovery of the excess salary already paid to and recovered from the respondent should be sustained

The Court applied the principle that pay fixation must conform to the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders, and that a competent authority may correct an erroneous pay fixation after verifying the correctness of the pay previously fixed.

The Court separately treated the question of recovery of excess salary and held that, in the circumstances of the case, the recovery already made should not be sustained.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the competent authority had already undertaken the exercise of verifying and correcting the respondent’s pay fixation before issuing the recovery order.

Consequently, the Single Judge’s direction requiring a further refixation of pay was considered unnecessary.

The Court therefore confirmed the refixation as having been made in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders.

However, it distinguished the validity of the pay refixation from the permissibility of recovering the excess amount and held that the recovery alone should be set aside.

The respondent’s refixation of pay was confirmed, while the recovery of excess salary was set aside.

Any amount already recovered pursuant to the refixation was directed to be refunded within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The appeal was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.