Recovery of excess pay from retired Group C/D employees is barred absent misrepresentation, despite valid pay refixation.

The petitioner, a retired employee who had served in Group C/Group D judicial service, challenged the refixation of his pay in the Selection Grade and Special Grade by the judicial authorities.

His pay had initially been fixed by the Judicial Department, but the Principal Accountant General objected that the fixation exceeded the pay scale admissible for the promotional post.

Following the objection, the authorities restricted the petitioner’s pay to the applicable Selection Grade/Special Grade scale and initiated recovery of the alleged excess payment.

The petitioner contended that the original fixation was made by the competent authorities, without any misrepresentation on his part, and sought quashing of the refixation order and revision of his pay under the applicable Government Orders.

1. Whether the authorities were justified in refixing and restricting the petitioner’s Selection Grade and Special Grade pay to the scales applicable to the corresponding promotional posts?

2. Whether recovery of the excess salary paid to the petitioner could be sustained when the excess payment resulted from an official pay-fixation error, without misrepresentation by the petitioner, and the petitioner had retired?

The Court applied the pay-fixation principles contained in paragraph 4 of G.O.Ms.No.162 dated 13 April 1998, under which Selection Grade pay for a post having a promotional avenue must be limited to the pay scale of the first-level promotional post where the prescribed Selection Grade scale is higher; similarly, Special Grade pay must be limited to the scale of the second-level promotional post.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decisions in W.A.No.312 of 2020, dated 11 February 2021, and W.P.No.5872 of 2021 batch, dated 15 March 2022, which upheld this interpretation and distinguished claims based merely on the protection against recovery of excess payments.

The Court further applied the principles recognised in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 344, and related authorities, that recovery of excess salary is ordinarily impermissible where the employee did not misrepresent facts, particularly when recovery is initiated after several years or after superannuation and would cause undue hardship.

The Court held that the original fixation had exceeded the scale legally admissible for the petitioner’s promotional post.

Under paragraph 4(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.162, the Selection Grade and Special Grade scales were required to be capped at the scales of the first- and second-level promotional posts respectively.

Since the Accountant General’s objection was consistent with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders, and the same approach had been affirmed by earlier Division Benches, the Court declined to interfere with the refixation.

However, the pay error was attributable to the Judicial Department and there was no allegation or finding of misrepresentation by the petitioner.

As the petitioner had served in Group C/Group D service and had already attained superannuation, recovery of salary received several years earlier would cause hardship and was therefore unsustainable.

The Court confirmed the refixation of the petitioner’s pay in accordance with the Accountant General’s objection and the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders.

However, the Court set aside the recovery of excess salary already paid.

If any amount had already been recovered, the authorities were directed to refund it within 12 weeks from receipt of the order.

No costs were awarded.