Recovery from retired employees for excess pay is impermissible absent fraud or misrepresentation by the employee.

The petitioner was appointed as a Sanitary Inspector in 1997

He was re-designated/upgraded to Tax Collector in 2003 (pay scale Rs. 4000-6000) and later promoted to Tax Inspector in 2010 (pay scale Rs. 5000-8000), pending clearance by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)

The petitioner retired on superannuation on April 30, 2023

On April 18, 2024—nearly a year after his retirement—respondent No. 2 issued an order rescinding the petitioner's 2003 upgradation and 2010 promotion ab initio, citing them as unauthorized/illegal

The order directed the recovery of excess pay drawn by the petitioner from his retiral benefits (DCRG)

1. Whether the respondents are legally justified in effecting recovery from the pension and pensionary dues of the petitioner after his retirement from service

2. Whether the respondents can re-fix the petitioner’s pension by ignoring the pay scale of a post for which he was never cleared by the DPC

The court primarily applied the legal principles established by the Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab & Ors v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), AIR 2015 SC 696, which prohibits recovery from retired employees or when excess payment was made for a period in excess of five years before the recovery order, provided no fraud/misrepresentation is attributable to the employee

It also considered the principle that service rendered in a higher post without DPC clearance/confirmation does not entitle an employee to pension fixation in that higher grade

The court observed that the recovery order was issued on April 18, 2024, nearly a year after the petitioner’s retirement on April 30, 2023

Under the Rafiq Masih precedent, recovery from a retired employee is impermissible, especially since there was no evidence on record to prove the petitioner connived with officials or committed fraud to obtain the promotions

However, regarding the fixation of pension, the court found that since the petitioner's promotion to Tax Inspector was "pending clearance of the DPC" and such clearance was never granted, he never held a confirmed right to the higher pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000

Therefore, while the past salary cannot be recovered, the future pension can be re-calculated based on the last confirmed lower post

It quashed the impugned order dated April 18, 2024, to the extent that it sought to recover excess emoluments already drawn by the petitioner

the court held that the respondents are within their rights to re-fix the petitioner’s pension by ignoring the pay scale of the Tax Inspector post, as his placement in that grade was never cleared by the DPC