Recovery of Excess Payments From Retired Group ‘C’ Employees Prohibited Absent Employee Misrepresentation

The petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard and retired as a Forester (a Group ‘C’ post) from the Tehri Dam Forest Division on January 31, 2022.

Post-retirement, respondent no. 5 issued an order for the recovery of ₹5,98,785 from the petitioner’s gratuity.

The State contended that the recovery was necessitated by a pay fixation error occurring after the 6th Pay Commission, which resulted in excess payments until his retirement.

The petitioner challenged this recovery, asserting he was not responsible for the miscalculation and that such recovery from a Group ‘C’ employee is legally impermissible.

1. Whether the recovery of excess salary paid due to a departmental mistake can be effected from the retiral dues of a Group ‘C’ employee.

2. Whether the recovery order passed without providing an opportunity of hearing or by an incompetent authority is sustainable.

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 from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year, particularly those belonging to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ services, where payments were made in excess by the employer without any fault or misrepresentation by the employee.

The court also relied on its own previous coordinate bench judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 335 of 2023.

The court noted that the petitioner retired from a Group ‘C’ post and that the excess payment was a result of a departmental error in pay fixation rather than any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner.

The State Counsel conceded that the matter was identical to the precedent set in WPSS No. 335 of 2023.

By applying the Rafiq Masih doctrine, the court reasoned that the recovery was prima facie impermissible unless the case fell under specific exclusionary contingencies (such as prior undertakings or specific misconduct) outlined in the referred judgment dated 18.09.2025.

Consequently, the court directed the competent authority to fact-check the case against those specific contingencies.

It held that the competent authority must examine if the petitioner’s case falls under the two restrictive contingencies mentioned in the precedent; if it does not, the authority is directed to release all retiral dues, including the recovered amount of ₹5,98,785, within eight weeks of receiving the certified order.