Recovery of Excess Salary Erroneously Paid for Over Five Years Without Misrepresentation is Impermissible.

The petitioner, a Sheristadar (formerly an Assistant promoted to Bench Clerk Grade III in 2011), was granted a 3% promotional increment upon his promotion

An audit report later determined this increment was inadmissible, leading the 2nd respondent to issue Office Order No. 77/2025 on 24.11.2025, seeking to recover excess pay and allowances totaling ₹2,73,865 accumulated between 11.08.2011 and 30.11.2025

The petitioner challenged this recovery via a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether the authorities have the power to rectify errors in pay fixation and recovery of public money

2. Whether the recovery of excess salary after a substantial lapse of time is legally permissible in the absence of misrepresentation by the employee

The Court applied the principle that while the State has the right to rectify pay fixation errors to prevent unjust gain of public money, this right is limited by the "hardship" doctrine.

It relied on the landmark precedent State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015 4 SCC 334), which prohibits recovery from employees in specific situations, including: (i) recovery from Class III/IV (Group C/D) services; (ii) recovery from employees where excess payment was made for more than five years before the recovery order; and (iii) cases where recovery would be iniquitous or result in extreme hardship

The Court observed that while the revised pay fixation itself was valid as per Pay Rules, the recovery of past payments was unsustainable.

The Court noted that there was no evidence of misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner in obtaining the higher pay; rather, it was an administrative error by the Establishment.

Applying the Rafiq Masih guidelines, the Court reasoned that attempting to recover funds after a lapse of 14 years (from 2011 to 2025) would cause extreme hardship to the employee and disturb the "equitable balance" between the employer's rights and the employee's welfare. Thus, while the correction of the salary going forward was upheld, the retrospective recovery was deemed arbitrary.

The respondents were directed to refund any amount already recovered to the petitioner within 12 weeks of the order. No costs were awarded.