Post-retirement recovery of erroneous pay fixation is impermissible absent a voluntary undertaking.

The petitioner, initially appointed as an Upper Division Teacher in 1988, retired as a Lecturer on 31 May 2022.

Following objections by the District Pension Office concerning his pay fixation, the respondents ordered recovery of ₹1,72,920, representing alleged excess payments made between 1 December 2018 and retirement.

The petitioner challenged the recovery, asserting that it was ordered without notice or an opportunity to be heard, that he had not caused the erroneous fixation, and that recovery after retirement was impermissible.

He also sought revised pay fixation from 22 November 2018; the Court found that he had produced no supporting document or circular for that claim.

Under State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), recovery of mistaken excess payments is impermissible in specified situations, including recovery from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year of the recovery order.

The Full Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey held, among other things, that recovery based on an undertaking given when pay is refixed depends on whether the undertaking was voluntary; an undertaking obtained at the stage of retiral benefits for an earlier refixation cannot be enforced.

Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack supports setting aside recovery where retired employees were not heard and the record discloses no fraud or misrepresentation.

The Court also relied on Ravindra Kumar Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, applying the principle that an undertaking given at the time of financial benefit must be shown to have been voluntary to support recovery.

The alleged excess payment related to the period from 1 December 2018 until the petitioner’s retirement on 31 May 2022, and the record contained no undertaking given when the disputed fixation was made.

The recovery was initiated after retirement and without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

The State’s argument that Rafiq Masih did not apply because the petitioner was a Class-II employee was rejected: the protection for retired employees applies independently of that classification.

The Court therefore found the recovery impermissible.

By contrast, the petitioner had furnished no document or circular supporting his claimed pay fixation, so the Court declined to interfere with the existing fixation.

The exercise was to be completed within 90 days of submission of a certified copy of the order; failing that, interest would increase to 12% per annum until payment.

The Court upheld the existing pay fixation and disposed of the petition.