Recovery of excess salary from a retired employee is impermissible absent misrepresentation or concealment.

The petitioner was selected as an Upper Division Clerk and appointed by the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board through appointment letter dated 7 December 1995.

After being medically examined and declared fit, with pregnancy specifically recorded in the medical certificate, she joined service on 22 December 1995.

She availed maternity leave for 180 days from 12 January 1996 and rejoined on 12 July 1996.

The respondents initially sanctioned the maternity-leave benefits and released the corresponding payment by order dated 27 August 1996.

Subsequently, relying on Punjab Government instructions dated 20 May 1992, adopted by the Board on 23 July 1996, the respondents treated 12 July 1996—not 22 December 1995—as her date of joining and ordered recovery of salary paid for the intervening period.

The petitioner challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; during the proceedings, she restricted her claim to the recovery and sought release of her gratuity and GPF, having retired on 31 March 2026.

1. Whether recovery of salary paid to the petitioner for the period preceding her maternity leave was legally permissible in the circumstances of the case.

2. Whether the respondents were required to release the petitioner’s withheld gratuity and GPF after retirement.

The Court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015(1) S.C.T. 195, that recovery of excess payments may be impermissible where it would be inequitable, harsh, or arbitrary, including recovery from retired employees or employees nearing retirement and in other cases where the hardship to the employee outweighs the employer’s right to recover.

The Court also considered the respondents’ reliance on the Punjab Government instructions dated 20 May 1992, adopted by the Board through Circular No. 28/96 dated 23 July 1996, concerning maternity leave and joining during pregnancy.

The petitioner had in fact joined service on 22 December 1995 pursuant to a valid appointment and had been medically declared fit, with her pregnancy known to the respondents at the time of joining.

Her maternity leave was subsequently sanctioned and the benefits were released by the respondents themselves.

There was no allegation of misrepresentation or concealment by the petitioner.

Applying Rafiq Masih, the Court held that recovery would be impermissible, particularly since the petitioner had retired by the time of adjudication and the payment had not been procured through any fault on her part.

Although the respondents relied on the later-adopted instructions to justify treating 12 July 1996 as the date of joining, that contention did not justify recovery of amounts already paid in the circumstances of the case.

The recovery ordered against the petitioner was quashed as unsustainable under the principles in Rafiq Masih.

The respondents were directed to release the petitioner’s gratuity and GPF within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.