Recovery of excess pay is impermissible absent employee misrepresentation, especially when spanning over five years.

The petitioner, initially appointed as a Junior Assistant in 2001 and currently serving as a Central Nazir, challenged an order for the recovery of excess pay

The 3rd Respondent issued Office Order No. 4/2024 dated 06.01.2024, directing the recovery of ₹1,88,134/- allegedly paid in excess between 01.11.2013 and 31.12.2023 due to errors in pay fixation following subsequent promotions

The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the recovery order and obtain a refund of any amounts already deducted

1. Whether the recovery of excess salary paid over a period of ten years is legally permissible in the absence of misrepresentation by the employee

2. Whether the establishment can penalize an employee for administrative errors in pay fixation after a significant lapse of time

The Court applied the principle that while authorities may rectify pay fixation errors to prevent unjust gain of public money, recovery is prohibited under specific conditions of hardship.

It relied primarily on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, which established that recovery is impermissible from Class III/IV employees, or when excess payment was made for a period exceeding five years before the recovery order

The Court observed that while the revised (correct) pay fixation should continue to prevent the impermissible gain of public money, the recovery of past excess payments was legally unsustainable

The respondents failed to prove any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner; rather, the overpayment resulted from an administrative error by the Establishment

Given that the petitioner is a staff member and the recovery pertained to a period exceeding ten years (2013–2023), the Court determined that enforcing the recovery would cause extreme hardship and would be iniquitous, thereby falling squarely within the prohibitions enumerated in the Rafiq Masih guidelines

The Court partly allowed the Writ Petition, confirming the revised pay fixation but quashing the order for recovery of excess salary. Consequently, the respondents were directed to refund any amount already recovered from the petitioner within 12 weeks of receipt of the order