Recovery of excess pay is impermissible absent employee misrepresentation where payment exceeded five years before recovery.

The petitioner, appointed as a Copyist in 1996 and currently serving as Bench Clerk Grade I, was sanctioned an annual increment in 2009 per G.O.Ms.No.450.

Following an Audit Report citing an "inadmissible sanction" of said increment for the period 2009 to 2025, the 4th respondent issued an order (D.No.896 dated 21.11.2025) for the recovery of excess pay totaling Rs.3,21,787/-.

The petitioner challenged this recovery via a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, asserting it was arbitrary and illegal.

1. Whether the authorities have the power to rectify errors in pay fixation and grant the correct pay as per applicable rules.

2. Whether the recovery of excess salary paid over a long duration (16 years) due to administrative error is permissible in law in the absence of misrepresentation by the employee.

The court recognized the principle that "unjust gain of public money is impermissible" and authorities may rectify fixation errors.

The court applied the protective principles established by the Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015 4 SCC 334), which prohibits recoveries from Group C/Class III employees (i) where excess payment was made for over five years before the recovery order, or (ii) where recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary.

The court found that while the establishment had the right to revise pay fixation upward or downward to align with statutory Pay Rules, it failed to prove any misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner.

The error was purely administrative. Applying the Rafiq Masih guidelines, the court noted that the recovery spanned a period of 16 years (2009–2025), and enforcing a recovery of Rs.3,21,787/- after such a lapse of time would cause "extreme hardship" and be "iniquitous".

Consequently, while the revised (lower) pay fixation was upheld as legally valid, the retrospective recovery of the disbursed amount was deemed impermissible.

The respondents were directed to refund any amount already recovered from the petitioner within 12 weeks. The impugned order of recovery was quashed only to the extent of the recovery of excess salary.