Recovery of excess pay after a prolonged period is impermissible absent misrepresentation or undertaking.

The petitioner, a Group-B employee, had received pay fixation under the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders.

An internal audit of the High Court subsequently found that his pay had been erroneously fixed and that an additional increment had been granted beyond his entitlement.

The authorities consequently ordered re-fixation of his pay and recovery of the alleged excess salary.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 20 November 2025, seeking restoration of his earlier pay fixation and a restraint against recovery.

Whether the respondents were justified in re-fixing the petitioner’s pay in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders.

Whether recovery of the excess salary paid pursuant to the erroneous fixation was legally permissible in the absence of misrepresentation or an undertaking by the petitioner to refund the excess amount.

Whether the recovery would be impermissible on the ground that it would cause undue hardship, applying the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih .

The Court applied the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders, under which an employee’s pay may be re-fixed where the original fixation or an additional increment is found to be erroneous.

It distinguished the legality of re-fixation from the permissibility of recovery of amounts already paid.

Relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih , (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Court applied the principle that recovery of excess payments may be impermissible where it would be inequitable, harsh, arbitrary, or disproportionate, particularly in the absence of employee misrepresentation or an undertaking to repay; the judgment also recognises several categories of impermissible recovery, including recovery after a prolonged period and recovery causing undue hardship.

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s pay had been incorrectly fixed and that the additional increment exceeded his entitlement; accordingly, the authorities were competent to correct the fixation under the governing Pay Rules and Government Orders.

However, the respondents could not establish that the petitioner had made any misrepresentation or had undertaken to refund any excess payment.

Since the alleged excess payment had continued for a considerable period, recovery would cause hardship and would be inequitable within the principles stated in Rafiq Masih .

The Court therefore upheld the corrective re-fixation but separated it from recovery of amounts already paid.

The Court confirmed the re-fixation of the petitioner’s pay and the related corrections made in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders.

However, the direction to recover excess salary was set aside.

Any amount already recovered from the petitioner was ordered to be refunded within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

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