Recovery of excess salary from Class-III employees is impermissible if paid due to department's administrative error.

The petitioner, a Class-III employee holding the post of Head Master at a Government Middle School in District Balod, challenged a recovery order dated 14.06.2021

Due to an administrative error by respondent authorities, the petitioner’s pay scale was fixed at a higher rate from April 2013 to July 2017

Upon detecting the mistake four years later, Respondent No. 4 issued an order to recover the excess payment totaling ₹60,510/-

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the recovery and ensure the continuation of regular salary without deductions

Whether the recovery of excess salary paid due to administrative error is permissible from a Class-III employee after a significant lapse of time

The court primarily relied on the legal principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) Others (2015) 4 SCC 334

This precedent stipulates that recovery by an employer is impermissible in law when: (i) it is sought from Class-III or Class-IV (Group C and D) employees; (ii) it is sought from retired employees or those due to retire within one year; or (iii) the excess payment was made for a period exceeding five years before the recovery order

The court observed that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and found no evidence of misrepresentation or fraud on her part regarding the pay fixation

It noted that the recovery order was issued in 2021, approximately four years after the period of excess payment ended, and at a time when the petitioner was 57 years old

Applying the Rafiq Masih criteria, the court determined that recovery from a mid-level employee (Class-III) for an administrative error committed nearly a decade prior would be iniquitous and harsh

The court further noted that the petitioner had since retired on superannuation during the pendency of the litigation, further strengthening the case against recovery

The High Court quashed the impugned recovery order dated 14.06.2021 (Annexure P/1) and directed the respondents to refund any amount already recovered from the petitioner, along with interest at the rate of 6%

The petition was allowed