Recovery of excess pay is impermissible where unexplained administrative delay renders the action iniquitous and harsh.

The applicant, a Stenographer Grade I in Prasar Bharati, challenged recovery orders for ₹5,00,800/-

Following a pay re-fixation in 2013, she received arrears and revised salary

However, a 2015 clarification led the respondents to re-fix her pay again on 23.02.2016, identifying an excess payment

Although the error was detected and a revised order was issued in 2016, the respondents failed to initiate actual recovery until 2021, eventually issuing a final recovery memo on 31.07.2023

The applicant retired in February 2026

She contended that she had no role in the erroneous fixation and that the recovery after such a delay was prohibited by established judicial precedents

1. Whether the recovery of excess pay is permissible when the error was detected within three years but the recovery was initiated after a further delay of seven years

2. Whether the recovery is iniquitous and harsh under the principles laid down in the Rafiq Masih case, given the applicant's Group B status and the timing of the recovery order

The court primarily applied the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits recovery in specific situations where it would be "iniquitous or harsh"

Specifically, Para 18(v) of the judgment provides a residual category where recovery is impermissible if it outweighs the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover

The court also referenced Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (2022) and Syed Abdul Qadir v. Union of India (2009) regarding the protection of employees against recovery when they are not at fault for the administrative error

The Tribunal observed that while the applicant’s case did not strictly fall under Para 18(i), (ii), or (iii) of Rafiq Masih—as she was a Group B employee and the error was technically detected within three years of the 2013 fixation—the subsequent administrative conduct was decisive

The respondents identified the overpayment in February 2016 but remained inactive for seven years without satisfactory explanation

The Tribunal held that this "delay and laches" shifted the balance of convenience in favor of the applicant under Para 18(v) of Rafiq Masih

It reasoned that since the applicant was not at fault for the erroneous payment, recovering a large sum after such a long interval, especially post-retirement, would be arbitrary and harsh

It directed the respondents to refund any amount already recovered from the applicant within twelve weeks

The Tribunal further held that the respondents are at liberty to conduct an inquiry to fix responsibility and recover the amount from the officials whose inaction caused the seven-year delay in affecting the recovery

No order as to costs was made