Recovery of excess pay from Class III and IV employees is impermissible in the absence of misrepresentation.

The petitioner was appointed as a Night Watchman in 2006 and subsequently promoted to Office Assistant (2008), Record Clerk (2014), and Examiner (2015)

Following an internal audit by the High Court, it was discovered that an increment granted during his tenure as a Night Watchman on 01.06.2006 was inadmissible

Consequently, the sixth respondent issued an order (ROC No. 359/2023) dated 18.06.2023 to revise the petitioner’s pay and recover excess payments totaling Rs. 1,58,636 in 50 installments

The petitioner challenged this recovery and the pay revision via a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus

1. Whether the authorities are empowered to rectify errors in pay fixation and revise pay in accordance with Government Orders

2. Whether the recovery of excess pay from a Class III/IV employee is permissible when the error was committed by the establishment without any misrepresentation by the employee

The court applied the principle that while the State may rectify pay fixation errors to prevent unjust gain of public money, such recovery is restricted by equitable considerations.

It relied heavily on the landmark precedent State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, which established that recovery is impermissible from Class III and IV employees (Group C and D), or when excess payments were made for over five years before the recovery order, as such recovery would be iniquitous and cause extreme hardship

The Court observed that the authorities have the inherent right to correct pay fixation errors to ensure compliance with Pay Rules; thus, the revised pay scale itself was upheld

However, regarding recovery, the Court found no evidence of misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner

Since the petitioner is a subordinate employee and the error was an administrative lapse occurring several years prior, the Court determined that recovery would result in "extreme hardship"

By applying the criteria from Rafiq Masih, specifically regarding Class III/IV service and the lapse of time, the Court concluded that the recovery of the accumulated excess amount was legally impermissible despite the legitimacy of the downward pay revision

The Court partly allowed the Writ Petition. The respondents were directed to refund any amount already recovered to the petitioner within twelve weeks. No costs were awarded