Recovery of excess payment from retired Group 'C' employees, without misrepresentation, is impermissible.

The applicant, Smt. Sunita, was initially appointed as a Typist on June 19, 1986, and retired as a COS in GP-4600 on October 31, 2023.

Prior to her retirement, on August 3, 2023, the respondents reduced her pay, alleging incorrect pay fixation on her promotion as Office Superintendent on December 23, 2011, without prior notice to her

Subsequently, on September 19, 2023, the respondents ordered the recovery of Rs. 2,37,651/- from her DCRG, again without issuing a show cause notice

The applicant contended that any alleged excess payment was due to the respondents' own mistake and not her misrepresentation or fraud

She sought to quash the recovery order dated September 19, 2023, and refund of the recovered amount with interest

During arguments, the applicant did not press the relief seeking to quash the order dated August 3, 2023, or the contention regarding the alleged wrong pay fixation, but only pressed the issue of recovery of excess payment from her DCRG

Whether the recovery of alleged excess payment of Rs. 2,37,651/- from the DCRG of a retired Group 'C' employee is permissible, especially when the overpayment was due to the employer's mistake and not the employee's misrepresentation or fraud

The court primarily applied the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits the recovery of excess payment in certain situations

Specifically, the judgment prohibits recovery from Class III and Class IV (Group ‘C’ and ‘D’) employees, retired employees, and in cases where the excess payment was due to the employer's mistake without misrepresentation by the employee

The court also referred to the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated March 2, 2016, which reiterates these legal positions

The court found that the applicant, being a retired Group 'C' employee, falls within the protected categories identified by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer)

The alleged excess payment stemmed from the department's own pay fixation years prior, and no misrepresentation was attributed to the applicant

The recovery from her DCRG, without notice, was deemed arbitrary and violative of natural justice, in addition to contravening the established legal principles

Therefore, the recovery made by the respondents was impermissible under the rule of law.

The impugned letter dated September 19, 2023, regarding the recovery of Rs. 2,37,651/- from the applicant was quashed and set aside

The respondents were directed to refund the recovered amount, along with the extant GPF interest rate, to the applicant within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of the order