Recovery of excess pay from Group C employees is impermissible absent misrepresentation or fraud.

The petitioner, a Grade III Bench Clerk in the Judicial Department and a Group ‘C’ employee, had received pay fixed by the competent authority.

An internal audit later objected to an additional increment granted while she was working as a Junior Assistant, and the second respondent ordered recovery of ₹1,18,706.

The alleged excess arose from the employer’s pay fixation; the judgment records no allegation of misrepresentation, fraud, or suppression by the petitioner.

She challenged the recovery order under Article 226, seeking to prevent recovery and obtain a refund of any amount already recovered.

The respondents’ counsel did not dispute that the issue was covered by an earlier Division Bench decision.

Whether recovery of the alleged excess pay of ₹1,18,706 could be sustained where the petitioner, a Group ‘C’ employee, was not responsible for the pay-fixation error.

Whether any amount already recovered pursuant to the impugned order should be refunded to the petitioner.

In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Supreme Court held that recovery of excess payments from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’) is impermissible in the circumstances addressed by that decision.

The Court also applied the Madras High Court Division Bench ruling in W.P.(MD) No. 15202 of 2026 and connected matters, dated 15 June 2026, which quashed recovery where excess payment resulted from the employer’s pay-fixation error and the employees had not misrepresented facts.

The judgment did not disturb the petitioner’s pay refixation; its ruling concerned recovery alone.

The alleged excess payment resulted from pay fixation by the competent authority, not from any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner.

As a Group ‘C’ employee, she fell within the category protected by the rule in Rafiq Masih.

The facts were also squarely covered by the earlier Division Bench decision, and the respondents did not contest that it applied.

The Court therefore held that recovery could not stand, while leaving the pay refixation undisturbed.

It directed the respondents to refund any amount already recovered within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.