Recovery of excess payments from retired Class-III employees is impermissible if no misrepresentation or fraud was committed.

The petitioner served in the Tripura Sub-Ordinate Judiciary from 1981 until his voluntary retirement on January 31, 2021.

He retired as a Chief Administrative-cum-Accounts Officer (Grade-II), a post he held for only one month prior to retirement; for the bulk of his service (2006–2020), he served in a Class-III post.

Following his retirement, the Accountant General’s Office issued an order on July 24, 2025, alleging an overdrawal of ₹5,42,871/- in pay/allowances and ₹3,50,000/- in Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), totaling ₹8,92,871/- to be recovered from his pension.

The petitioner challenged this recovery and sought the full DCRG amount of ₹10,00,000/- as per the 2017 Revised Pension Rules.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a DCRG amount of ₹10,00,000/- under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017.

2. Whether the respondents can legally recover alleged overdrawals of pay and DCRG from a retired employee who previously served in a Class-III category.

The Court applied the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017, which enhanced the DCRG limit from ₹4,00,000/- to ₹10,00,000/- effective April 1, 2017.

The Court relied on the Division Bench precedent in W.A. No. 61 of 2022 which concluded the DCRG entitlement issue.

The Court applied the restrictive principles on recovery established by the Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which prohibits recovery from retired employees, Class-III/IV employees, or when excess payment was made for over five years, provided no fraud or misrepresentation was committed by the employee.

The Court found that the DCRG entitlement was indeed ₹10,00,000/-, and since the petitioner was only paid ₹7,50,000/-, there was a shortfall rather than an excess.

Regarding the recovery of ₹5,42,871/- for pay overdrawal, the Court noted the petitioner had not committed fraud or misrepresentation.

Applying the Rafiq Masih criteria, the Court held recovery was impermissible because: (i) the petitioner was a Class-III employee during the period the excess occurred (2006–2020); (ii) he is already retired; and (iii) the alleged overdrawal spanned more than five years.

The Court observed that the recovery order was passed behind the petitioner's back 4.5 years after retirement, violating principles of natural justice.

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the full DCRG of ₹10,00,000/- (leaving a balance of ₹2,50,000/-) and that any recovery of past overdrawals is iniquitous and arbitrary.

The respondents were directed to compute and fix the petitioner’s pension without any deductions for alleged overdrawals within four weeks and to pay all arrears with 9% interest per annum within two months.