Recovery of excess pay from Group C and D employees is impermissible in the absence of misrepresentation.

The petitioner was appointed as a Masalchi in 2013, promoted to Record Clerk in 2016, and subsequently to Reader on January 10, 2019.

On December 31, 2025, the second respondent issued an impugned order (Dis.No.12604/2025/CS) following an internal audit objection regarding excess pay fixation.

The order directed the re-fixation of the petitioner’s salary and the recovery of excess pay and allowances totaling ₹5,00,263/- for the period from January 11, 2019, to October 2025.

The petitioner challenged this recovery action through a writ petition.

1. Whether the authorities are empowered to rectify errors in pay fixation and grant the correct pay in accordance with rules.

2. Whether the recovery of excess payments made due to administrative error is permissible from an employee after a long lapse of time, absent any misrepresentation by said employee.

The court held that while authorities are empowered to rectify pay fixation errors to prevent the unjust gain of public money, recovery is restricted by equitable principles.

The court relied on the precedent established by the Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015 4 SCC 334), which prohibits recovery from Class III and IV (Group C and D) employees, or when excess payment was made for a period exceeding five years before the recovery order, or in cases where recovery would be iniquitous or cause extreme hardship.

The Court acknowledged that the revised pay fixation itself was valid as it aligned with Pay Rules and Government Orders, noting that unjust gain of public funds is impermissible.

The Court found that the excess payment was a result of an administrative error by the Establishment, not any misrepresentation by the petitioner.

Applying the Rafiq Masih guidelines, the Court determined that since the recovery spanned a long period (over six years) and would cause "extreme hardship" to the employee, the attempt to recover the lump sum was "iniquitous".

While the employer has a right to correct future pay, the right to recover past mistaken payments is outweighed by the equitable balance in favor of the employee in these specific circumstances.

The Court partly allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the impugned order specifically regarding the recovery of excess salary, and directed the respondents to repay any amount already recovered from the petitioner within 12 weeks.