Recovery of excess salary after prolonged payment is impermissible absent employee misrepresentation or repayment undertaking.

The petitioner, a Group-B Sheristadar serving in the District Court, Tirupathur, had received pay fixation under the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders.

An internal audit subsequently found that his pay had been erroneously fixed and that an additional increment had been sanctioned beyond his entitlement.

The authorities therefore ordered re-fixation of his pay and recovery of the excess salary paid.

The petitioner challenged the recovery proceedings dated 01.07.2026, contending that there had been no misrepresentation on his part and that the recovery was unjust after a considerable lapse of time.

The respondents were unable to establish either any misrepresentation by the petitioner or any undertaking by him agreeing to repay excess payment.

Whether recovery of excess salary paid pursuant to an erroneous pay fixation could be sustained in the absence of misrepresentation by the employee or an undertaking to repay the excess amount, particularly after a prolonged period.

Whether the authorities’ re-fixation of the petitioner’s pay in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders was liable to be set aside along with the recovery.

The Court applied the principles governing recovery of excess payments laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, under which recovery may be impermissible where it would be inequitable, harsh, or arbitrary and would outweigh the employer’s right to recover.

The judgment also identifies circumstances such as recovery from lower-category employees, retired or imminently retiring employees, and recovery of payments made for more than five years.

The Court further applied the principle that recovery of excess payment is generally unsustainable where the employee committed no misrepresentation and gave no undertaking to refund the amount, especially where recovery after a prolonged period would cause hardship.

The authorities were, however, entitled to correct erroneous pay fixation and re-fix pay in accordance with the governing Pay Rules and Government Orders.

The Court distinguished between correction of the erroneous pay fixation and recovery of the excess amount already paid.

Although the audit established that an additional increment had been granted beyond the petitioner’s entitlement, there was no finding that the petitioner had misrepresented facts or procured the benefit fraudulently, nor had he undertaken to repay any excess payment.

Applying Rafiq Masih, the Court held that recovery after a prolonged period, in circumstances where the employee was not responsible for the erroneous fixation, would cause hardship and would be inequitable.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the administrative correction of the petitioner’s pay but found the recovery of excess salary legally unsustainable.

The recovery of excess salary from the petitioner was set aside, while the re-fixation of pay carried out in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders was confirmed.

If any amount had already been recovered, the respondents were directed to refund only that recovered amount within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.