Recovery of excess salary from a Group D employee after five years is impermissible absent misrepresentation.

The petitioner, appointed as a Night Watchman on 01.12.2011 and serving at the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli, was granted an increment pursuant to a Pay Cell communication.

Following a High Court audit objection, the respondents determined that the increment and consequent pay fixation were erroneous and ordered recovery of excess pay and allowances amounting to ₹1,23,209 for the period from 01.08.2013 to 31.03.2023, in 24 monthly instalments with effect from 01.04.2023.

The petitioner challenged Office Order No. 28/2023 dated 26.04.2023, contending that the excess payment resulted from an establishment error, without any misrepresentation on his part, and that recovery after several years would cause hardship.

1. Whether the respondents were entitled to revise the petitioner’s pay fixation and correct the erroneous increment granted pursuant to the Pay Cell communication.

2. Whether recovery of ₹1,23,209 from the petitioner, a Class IV/Group D employee, for excess payments made over a period exceeding five years and without any misrepresentation by him, was legally permissible.

The Court held that unjust enrichment from public funds is impermissible and that competent authorities may rectify erroneous pay fixation in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders; such revised pay fixation may therefore be sustained.

However, it relied on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which identifies circumstances in which recovery of excess payments is impermissible, including recovery from Class III and Class IV employees, recovery of payments made for a period exceeding five years before the recovery order, and recovery that would be harsh, arbitrary, or inequitable.

The Court distinguished between correcting the petitioner’s pay fixation and recovering amounts already paid.

Since the increment had been erroneously granted, the respondents were competent to revise the petitioner’s pay in accordance with the governing rules and audit objection.

Nevertheless, the petitioner was a Night Watchman, falling within the Class IV/Group D category, and the excess payment had accrued over approximately ten years—from 01.08.2013 to 31.03.2023—before the recovery order dated 26.04.2023.

The Court further found no misrepresentation by the petitioner; the error was attributable to the establishment.

Applying the principles in Rafiq Masih, it held that recovery after such a long period would cause extreme hardship and would be impermissible, although correction of the pay fixation itself could continue.

Any amount already recovered under the impugned order was directed to be repaid to the petitioner within 12 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

The writ petition was accordingly partly allowed; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and there was no order as to costs.