Recovery of excess pay from a Group-C employee at retirement is impermissible.

The petitioner, a retired Assistant Sub-Inspector and Group C employee, retired on 31 January 2015. Following a memorandum dated 8 December 2014 refixing his pay at a lower stage, the respondents deducted ₹70,298 from his pensionary benefits as recovery of excess payment. The petitioner accepted the pay refixation but challenged the recovery, asserting that no notice had been given before it was determined or deducted.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application, Application No. 1889/2019, on the ground of delay. He challenged that order before the High Court.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred by dismissing the petitioner’s application solely on the ground of delay, without examining the legality of the recovery from his pensionary benefits.

2. Whether recovery of ₹70,298 from the pensionary benefits of a retired Group C employee was impermissible under the principles in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer).

In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Supreme Court identified circumstances in which recovery of excess payments by an employer is impermissible, including recovery from Group C or Group D employees and from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year of the recovery order; recovery may also be barred where it would be inequitable, harsh or arbitrary.

The High Court further treated recovery from pensionary benefits in this case as a continuing cause of action and held that a retired government employee’s claim should not be rejected solely for delay without examining its merits.

The petitioner’s claim concerned recovery from his retirement benefits, not the validity of the pay refixation, which he had accepted.

The High Court considered that the recovery was imposed on a Group C employee at retirement and therefore fell within the categories identified in Rafiq Masih as impermissible. Because the recovery from pensionary benefits constituted a continuing cause of action, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the application solely for delay; it should have considered whether the recovery was lawful.

It directed the respondents not to recover the ₹70,298 and, if already recovered, to return the amount to the petitioner. Compliance was ordered within three months from the date the order was uploaded on the High Court’s official website.