Recovery of alleged excess salary from a Class III employee without hearing is unsustainable.

The petitioner, Constable No. 476, had been serving in the Police Department since 19 October 1993.

His pay was purportedly refixed by an order dated 16 October 2019, a copy of which was neither supplied to him nor otherwise communicated.

On the basis of a subsequent calculation, the respondents determined that excess salary had been paid and initially directed recovery of ₹1,81,878, later revising it to ₹1,34,510.

The recovery related to the period beginning in 2011–2012, with interest also applied, although the respondents had recalculated the petitioner’s salary from 2006 onwards.

The petitioner contended that the excess payment was not caused by fraud, misrepresentation, or any act attributable to him, and that the recovery had been ordered without notice or hearing.

He sought quashing of the recovery, stating that the amount had already been recovered from his salary.

Whether recovery of alleged excess salary paid to a Class III employee, without any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation and without prior notice or hearing, was legally sustainable.

Whether the principle permitting recovery pursuant to an undertaking, as recognised in High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, applied to the petitioner’s case.

Whether the amount already recovered from the petitioner was liable to be refunded.

The Court relied on the principle in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher), (2015) 4 SCC 334, that recovery of excess payments is generally impermissible in cases involving employees in lower service categories, including Class III employees, particularly where the excess payment was not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.

It also applied the principles of natural justice, holding that a unilateral refixation of pay and consequential recovery without notice or an opportunity of hearing is unsustainable.

The Court considered High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, AIR 2016 SC 3523, but distinguished it on the ground that recovery in that case was supported by an undertaking given at the time of pay revision, whereas no such undertaking or comparable pay-revision circumstance was shown here.

The Court found that the respondents’ tabulation did not establish that the alleged excess payment resulted from a pay revision or incorrect fixation supported by an undertaking.

It also found no allegation that the petitioner had secured the excess payment through fraud or misrepresentation.

Since the petitioner was a Class III employee and the recovery was imposed after unilateral recalculation, without supplying the refixation order or providing an opportunity to contest the determination, the action violated natural justice and fell within the protective principle in Rafiq Masih.

The Court further noted that the petitioner was nearing retirement and that the recovery related to payments allegedly made over several years, making it appropriate to resolve the matter finally rather than remit it for further proceedings.

As the amount had already been recovered, the respondents were directed to refund the entire recovered sum within three months from the date of communication of the order.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.