Recovery of excess salary from a retired employee is impermissible, regardless of classification.

The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Division Teacher on 14 September 1982 and subsequently retired as a Principal on 31 January 2019.

During scrutiny of his service record at retirement, the respondents alleged that his pay had been incorrectly fixed, resulting in excess payment. A recovery of ₹2,26,573 was consequently recorded in his Pension Payment Order.

The petitioner contended that the recovery was ordered without a show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing and that the alleged excess payment resulted from an administrative error for which he was not responsible.

The petitioner died on 30 January 2026, and his wife was brought on record as his legal representative on 12 May 2026.

Despite repeated opportunities, the State did not file a reply, and the Court proceeded on the basis of the documents available on record.

Whether recovery of ₹2,26,573 from the petitioner’s retiral benefits, initiated at or after his retirement, was legally permissible when no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing had been given

Whether the petitioner’s status as a Class-II employee and Principal excluded him from the protection against recovery recognised in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih

Whether any undertaking relating to pay fixation could sustain the recovery in the absence of proof that it had been given voluntarily

The Court applied the principles in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, particularly that recovery from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year is ordinarily impermissible and that recovery may also be barred where it would be inequitable, harsh, or arbitrary.

It relied on the Full Bench decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, (2024) 2 M.P.L.J. 198, which held that recovery based on pay refixation must conform to applicable procedural safeguards; an undertaking given at the stage of retiral benefits for an old pay fixation cannot ordinarily be enforced, and an undertaking obtained as a condition of granting financial benefits is unenforceable unless shown to have been given voluntarily.

The Court also referred to Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack, 2025 (3) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 25, where recovery was held unsustainable against retired employees in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, and a prior opportunity of hearing.

The decision in Ravindra Kumar Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 17831 of 2019, was relied upon for the principle that the State must establish the voluntary nature of an undertaking before enforcing it.

The Court found that the recovery had been initiated in connection with an alleged erroneous pay fixation and that the petitioner had retired before or at the time the recovery was effected.

There was no material showing fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner, nor had the State demonstrated that he had been given a show-cause notice or an opportunity of hearing.

Applying Rafiq Masih, the Court held that the protection against recovery from retired employees applied irrespective of the petitioner’s classification as a Class-II employee or Principal; the State’s argument that his status excluded him from that protection was therefore rejected.

The State’s failure to file a reply meant that the petitioner’s factual assertions remained unrebutted, and the benefit of doubt was extended to him.

In light of the Full Bench ruling in Jagdish Prasad Dubey, any purported undertaking could not validate the recovery absent proof that it had been voluntarily given.

The respondents were directed to refund the amount to the petitioner’s wife, as legal representative, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of retirement until actual payment.

If payment was not made within the prescribed period, interest would accrue at 12% per annum from the date of entitlement until payment.

The exercise was directed to be completed within 90 days from submission of a certified copy of the order, and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of.