Facts
The petitioner joined service as a Night Security Guard in 2001, was promoted to Writer in 2012, and retired on 31.05.2022
Source reference: p.2In 2020, while still in service, the 1st Respondent issued a show cause notice (dated 09.12.2020) based on an internal audit report
Source reference: p.2The notice alleged that the petitioner’s pay was wrongly fixed, resulting in an excess payment of ₹73,159/-, which was subsequently recovered from his salary
Source reference: p.2-3The petitioner challenged this show cause notice and sought a refund of the recovered amount via a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
Source reference: p.2Issues
1. Whether a Writ Petition is maintainable against a show cause notice regarding pay recovery
Source reference: p.3, para. 32. Whether the recovery of excess salary paid due to an administrative error is permissible from a Class III/IV employee after a significant lapse of time
Source reference: p.4, para. 6-7Law Applied
While authorities may rectify pay fixation errors to prevent unjust gain of public money, recovery is limited by equitable principles.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits recovery from Group C/D (Class III/IV) employees, retired employees (or those within one year of retirement), or where excess payment exceeded five years before the recovery order
Source reference: p.4-5, para. 7Reasoning
The Court observed that unless the employer proves misrepresentation by the employee, an error in pay fixation is an administrative mistake for which the employee should not be penalized
Source reference: p.4, para. 6Applying the Rafiq Masih criteria, the Court reasoned that recovering ₹73,159/- after several years would cause "extreme hardship" and was "iniquitous"
Source reference: p.4, para. 6-7While the Court upheld the management's right to re-fix the pay to the correct level prospectively in accordance with Pay Rules, it determined that the retrospective recovery of paid amounts was legally impermissible under the specific circumstances of the petitioner's service status and the lapse of time
Source reference: p.6, para. 8Holding
The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by setting aside the recovery order
It held that while the respondents may re-fix the petitioner's pay correctly for future/pensionary calculations, they must refund the recovered amount of ₹73,159/- to the petitioner within twelve weeks. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed
Source reference: p.6, para. 9Original Court PDF
E.KRISHNAMOORTHYvsTHE SUB JUDGE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in