Recovery of excess payments is impermissible absent fraud or misrepresentation by the employee.

The applicant, Mohammad Yousuf Mir, served as a Working Supervisor in the semi-skilled category and was granted benefits under SRO 149 of 1973

The respondent Accountant General subsequently issued a communication alleging that the applicant had drawn excess pay and directed the recovery of the same

The applicant challenged this recovery, asserting that the payment was not a result of any fraud or misrepresentation on his part and that such recovery from pensionary benefits is arbitrary

1. Whether the respondents can legally effect recovery of excess pay from an employee in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to protection against recovery based on established judicial precedents regarding retired or retiring employees

The Tribunal primarily relied on the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits recoveries from employees when it would be iniquitous or harsh, particularly from retired employees or Group C/D staff

It further applied Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (2022) Live Law SC 438 and Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475, which hold that if excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle or an incorrect interpretation of a rule, and not due to the employee's misrepresentation, such amount cannot be recovered

The Tribunal noted the applicant's contention that the excess pay resulted from the department's application of SRO 149 of 1973 rather than any deceptive conduct by the employee

Rather than deciding the merits of the recovery itself, the Tribunal directed the respondents to treat the Original Application (O.A.) as a formal representation

The court reasoned that the respondents must determine if the applicant's circumstances are "squarely covered" by the protective doctrines in Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel

The Tribunal's approach focuses on administrative review, requiring the respondents to issue a "speaking order" that reconciles the proposed recovery with the binding precedents of the Apex Court

The Tribunal further ordered that no recoveries shall be effected from the applicant’s pensionary benefits until the disposal of the representation, provided the applicant’s case falls within the scope of the cited judicial pronouncements and there is no other legal impediment