Recovery of excess pay after retirement is impermissible absent fraud, misrepresentation, or a timely claim.

The petitioner was appointed as a Store Keeper with Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University on 18 November 1983 and retired on superannuation on 30 June 2020.

After his retirement, the respondents issued recovery orders for ₹1,10,923 and ₹3,15,988 on the ground that excess salary had been paid due to erroneous pay fixation.

The petitioner contended that the excess payment resulted from the respondents’ own mistake, that he had neither misrepresented nor committed fraud, and that no opportunity of hearing was granted before ordering recovery.

The University relied on an undertaking allegedly furnished by the petitioner under Rule 66 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, and stated that ₹1,10,923 had already been recovered.

The petitioner challenged the recovery orders under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether recovery of alleged excess salary from the petitioner after his retirement was permissible when the excess payment resulted from the respondents’ mistake and was not induced by fraud or misrepresentation?

Whether the recovery was barred or rendered impermissible by Rule 66(3)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, when no claim was raised within six months from the petitioner’s retirement?

Whether the undertaking furnished by the petitioner under Rule 66 could, by itself, justify recovery contrary to the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)?

The Court applied Rule 66(3)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which requires recoverable Government dues to be assessed and adjusted within six months from the date of retirement and provides that, if no claim is made within that period, no Government claim—apart from house rent and water charges—is presumed to be outstanding.

The Court also relied on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, particularly paragraph 18, which identifies circumstances in which recovery of excess payments is impermissible, including recovery from retired employees and recovery that would be inequitable, harsh, or arbitrary.

The governing principle is that recovery of mistaken excess payments cannot ordinarily be made from a retired employee where the employee has not practised fraud or misrepresentation and the recovery would cause inequity or undue hardship.

The petitioner retired on 30 June 2020, whereas the recovery orders were issued thereafter and beyond six months from the date of retirement.

Under Rule 66(3)(a), the respondents were required to assess and adjust recoverable dues within that six-month period; their failure to do so attracted the statutory presumption that no recoverable claim was outstanding, subject to the stated exceptions.

The Court further found that the higher pay had been granted by the department itself and that there was no allegation or finding of fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner.

Since the petitioner was already a retired employee, the case fell squarely within the impermissible category identified in Rafiq Masih.

The undertaking relied upon by the University did not validate recovery that was otherwise contrary to Rule 66(3)(a) and the equitable limitations recognised by the Supreme Court.

The writ petition was allowed.

The amount of ₹1,10,923 already recovered from the petitioner was directed to be refunded forthwith, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of deposit until realisation.

The recovery claim of ₹3,15,988 was also set aside as part of the quashing of the impugned recovery orders.