Recovery for erroneous pay fixation is impermissible from Class-III employees absent fraud or voluntary undertaking.

The petitioner was appointed as a Head Constable (Radio) Technician in 1981

The respondent authorities initiated and completed the recovery of ₹52,818 from the petitioner’s salary in installments

This recovery was based on an alleged excess payment resulting from a miscalculation of salary increments by a pay clerk

The petitioner challenged the recovery on the grounds that it was executed without a formal recovery order, without a show-cause notice, and without an opportunity for a hearing

The State contended that the recovery was justified as the amount was paid erroneously and inadvertently

1. Whether the recovery of excess salary paid due to a bona fide clerical error is permissible when the employee is not at fault and no prior notice was served.

2. whether an undertaking given by an employee at the time of pay refixation allows the State to bypass the protections against recovery for Class-III/ministerial employees.

The Court applied the principles regarding recovery of excess payments established in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which prohibits recovery from Class-III/IV employees or when payments exceed five years

It relied on the Full Bench decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, which held that recoveries cannot be based on forced undertakings and must follow the procedure under the Rules of 1976

Additionally, it cited Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack, emphasizing that recovery from ministerial posts is unsustainable if no fraud or misrepresentation is attributed to the employee

The Court found that the excess payment of ₹52,818 resulted from a "bona fide mistake" by a pay clerk (Smt. Abida Khanem) rather than any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner

Applying the Rafiq Masih criteria, the Court noted that the petitioner was a ministerial employee and that the State failed to provide a show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice

Regarding the State's reliance on undertakings, the Court followed the Jagdish Prasad Dubey precedent, determining that any such undertaking is typically "forced" rather than voluntary and thus unenforceable to effect recovery

Since the State could not prove the undertaking was voluntary and the error was entirely administrative, the recovery was deemed iniquitous.

The Court set aside the impugned recovery and directed the respondents to refund the full amount of ₹52,818 to the petitioner

Furthermore, the respondents were ordered to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of entitlement until actual payment, with the entire exercise to be completed within 90 days

The petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner