Pay revision may stand, but delayed recovery of excess salary from a Group C employee is impermissible.

The petitioner, a Grade III Bench Clerk, was appointed as an Examiner on 11 September 2013 and later promoted.

Her pay was fixed by the competent authorities under the applicable rules.

Following an internal audit objection, the third respondent issued proceedings dated 24 July 2026 requiring recovery of excess pay.

The petitioner challenged those proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution

The Court noted that the respondents had not established any misrepresentation by the petitioner and that the alleged error was attributable to the establishment

Whether the respondents could revise the petitioner’s pay fixation following the audit objection

Whether recovery of the excess salary from the petitioner was permissible, given the absence of misrepresentation and the hardship caused by recovery after a lapse of time

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court may review administrative proceedings affecting an employee’s pay and recovery of salary.

An employer may correct an erroneous pay fixation and grant the pay applicable under the relevant rules, but recovery of excess payments may be impermissible in circumstances identified in *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih*, (2015) 4 SCC 334—including recovery from Group C or Group D employees, recovery for payments made more than five years before the recovery order, and recovery that would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary

The Court distinguished correction of pay fixation from recovery of amounts already paid.

It upheld the revised fixation made pursuant to the audit objection, observing that the authorities could rectify the error and apply the correct pay rules.

However, the respondents had not shown that the petitioner misrepresented any fact; the error was attributable to the establishment, and recovery after many years would cause extreme hardship.

Applying the principles in *Rafiq Masih*, the Court therefore found recovery impermissible while leaving the revised pay fixation undisturbed.

The revised pay fixation was confirmed, but the impugned proceedings were set aside insofar as they directed recovery of excess salary.

Any amount already recovered under the impugned order must be repaid to the petitioner within 12 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed