Recovery of excess pay after prolonged delay without employee misrepresentation is impermissible, though pay refixation may continue.

The petitioner, V. Chellammal, was working as a Head Clerk under the second respondent and superannuated on 31 January 2026.

She had been promoted from Assistant to Bench Clerk Grade III and joined the promotional post on 14 December 2013. Pursuant to the promotion, a 3% promotional increment was sanctioned and her pay was fixed accordingly.

Following an audit objection, the respondents concluded that the post of Bench Clerk Grade III had been created by redeployment of Assistants and was not a transfer post carrying a promotional increment.

The second respondent consequently issued Office Order No. 103/2026 dated 8 June 2026, directing recovery of ₹2,76,087 from the petitioner’s pensionary benefits for alleged excess pay and allowances received between 14 December 2013 and 31 January 2026.

The amount was recovered, leading the petitioner to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the recovery order and repayment of the recovered sum.

Whether the respondents were entitled to revise the petitioner’s pay fixation pursuant to the audit objection and correct the alleged excess payment?

Whether recovery of ₹2,76,087 from the petitioner’s pensionary benefits was legally permissible, particularly when the excess payment resulted from an official error, continued for more than five years, and was recovered after her superannuation?

The Court applied the principle that unjust enrichment through retention of public money is impermissible and that competent authorities may rectify erroneous pay fixation in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders; accordingly, a lawful revision of pay fixation may be sustained.

However, recovery of excess salary may be impermissible where the employee made no misrepresentation, the excess payment resulted from the employer’s error, recovery is sought after a prolonged period, or recovery would cause undue hardship.

The Court relied principally on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which identifies, inter alia, impermissible recovery from retired employees or employees retiring within one year, recovery relating to excess payments made for more than five years before the recovery order, and recovery that would be inequitable, harsh, or arbitrary.

The Court distinguished between correction of an erroneous pay fixation and recovery of amounts already paid.

It held that the respondents could revise the petitioner’s pay in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders because continued payment of an amount not legally due would result in unjust gain from public funds.

Nevertheless, the respondents failed to establish any misrepresentation by the petitioner in the original fixation of pay; the error was attributable to the Establishment.

Further, the alleged excess payments extended from 2013 to 2026, and recovery was ordered after the petitioner had attained superannuation.

Applying the principles in Rafiq Masih, the Court found that recovery after such a long lapse of time would cause extreme hardship and would be inequitable, notwithstanding the respondents’ authority to correct the pay fixation.

The Court confirmed the revision of the petitioner’s pay pursuant to the audit objection but set aside the recovery of the excess pay and allowances.

The respondents were directed to repay the recovered amount of ₹2,76,087 to the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The impugned order was accordingly set aside only insofar as it directed recovery of excess salary; there was no order as to costs.