Recovery of excess payments from Class-III retired employees is impermissible absent fraud or misrepresentation.

The petitioner was appointed as a Librarian on August 18, 1966, in a school receiving grant-in-aid.

Relying on government instructions (Clause 3) stating that clerical and other employees retire at age 62, the petitioner served until July 31, 2011.

After retirement, the State sanctioned 6th Pay Commission arrears.

Respondent No. 3 subsequently issued an order to recover payments, asserting the petitioner’s actual superannuation age was 60, not 62.

The petitioner challenged this recovery on the grounds that he actually worked during the disputed period, there was no misrepresentation on his part, and the order violated principles of natural justice.

1. Whether the respondents could legally effect recovery of salary and 6th Pay Commission benefits from a retired Class III employee who had actually performed duties until the age of 62.

2. Whether the recovery order was sustainable given the lack of a show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing.

The Court applied the principles established by the Supreme Court in *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)* (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits recovery from retired Class III/Class IV employees or where excess payment exceeded five years.

It further relied on the Full Bench decision in *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey* (2024) 2 M.P.L.J. 198 regarding the enforceability of undertakings for recovery.

Additionally, the court cited *Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack* (2025) 3 M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 25, affirming that recovery from retired ministerial staff is unsustainable without proof of fraud or misrepresentation.

The Allahabad High Court's ruling in *Sita Ram Yadav v. DIOS, Jaunpur* (1990) regarding the right to salary for work actually performed under Article 21 and 23 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that the petitioner was a Class III employee and that the respondents failed to demonstrate any fraud or misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner to secure the extended service.

Applying the *Rafiq Masih* criteria, the Court found that recovery from a retired employee is generally impermissible, especially when the individual has actually discharged duties for the period in question.

The Court emphasized that depriving an employee of salary for work actually performed violates constitutional mandates.

The impugned recovery order was functionally flawed as it was issued without a show-cause notice or providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

It held that the petitioner, having worked until age 62 without misrepresentation, cannot be deprived of his salary or benefits.

The respondents were directed to pay the remaining 6th Pay Commission arrears with 6% interest per annum within 90 days.

The State was granted liberty to recover the excess payments from the erring officers or institutions responsible for the lapse, rather than the petitioner.