Recovery of excess pay caused by departmental error is impermissible where it would cause undue hardship.

The applicant, a serving Inspector, challenged orders dated 12 April 2022 and 30 May 2022 concerning re-fixation of his pay and recovery of ₹2,66,450.

The recovery followed a service-book verification that identified errors in his earlier pay fixation.

He maintained that the overpayment resulted from departmental error, not any misrepresentation on his part, and that he had not been given an effective opportunity to explain the discrepancy.

The applicant filed the application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether recovery of the alleged excess payment was impermissible where it resulted from departmental pay-fixation errors and there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to refund of amounts already recovered under the impugned orders.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for an aggrieved person to seek relief before the Tribunal.

In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), the Supreme Court identified situations in which recovery of mistaken excess payments may be impermissible, including where recovery would be inequitable, harsh, or arbitrary.

In Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court reiterated those principles and considered recovery where excess payment resulted from the employer’s error rather than the employee’s fraud or misrepresentation.

Applied to the circumstances of a particular case, recovery may be barred where the employee did not cause the error and recovery would cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not allege fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant and that the alleged excess payment arose from errors in departmental pay fixation or service-book entries.

The record disclosed no role by the applicant in the erroneous fixation, and he had received the pay for a considerable period.

Applying Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel, the Tribunal concluded that recovery in these circumstances would cause undue hardship and could not be sustained in law.

It directed the respondents to refund any amount already recovered within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order; failing that, interest at the GPF rate would apply.

No costs were awarded, and the associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of.