Recovery of excess payments from retired Group C employees is impermissible under Rafiq Masih.

The applicant, a Technician Grade-I who retired on 31 December 2023, challenged deductions made from his DCRG.

After an earlier Tribunal order directed the respondents to decide his representation, the respondents issued an order dated 26 November 2024 stating that deductions had been made for alleged excess salary, excess leave, and other dues.

The applicant sought refund of the recovered amount, contending that he was a retired Group C employee and had neither misrepresented facts nor received a show-cause notice before recovery.

The respondents stated that Rs. 5,35,610 was recoverable for excess salary and Rs. 1,53,864 for excess paid leave, alongside other deductions; they said the balance DCRG and interest had been paid.

Whether recovery of alleged excess payments from the applicant’s DCRG was impermissible in law, given that he was a retired Group C employee and no misrepresentation or fault on his part was found.

Whether the applicant was entitled to refund of the amount recovered, with interest.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an application before the Tribunal.

In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Supreme Court identified categories in which recovery of mistaken excess payments is impermissible, including recovery from Group C and Group D employees and from retired employees.

The Tribunal also referred to DoPT Office Memoranda dated 2 March 2016 and 22 June 2016, which addressed waiver of recovery in the situations identified in Rafiq Masih.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a retired employee who had served in a Group C post, and that there was no misrepresentation or fault on his part in the alleged overpayment.

Those circumstances placed the recovery within categories held impermissible in Rafiq Masih.

The Tribunal also noted that the recovery had been made without issuing a show-cause notice, and concluded that it was contrary to the governing law.

It directed the respondents to refund the entire amount recovered from the applicant’s DCRG, together with interest at the GPF rate, within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The O.A. was allowed, with no order as to costs.