Recovery of excess salary is barred absent misrepresentation or undertaking; lawful pay refixation remains permissible.

N. Gopalakrishnan, a retired Sub-Inspector of Police, challenged the recovery of excess salary allegedly paid to him due to an erroneous pay fixation.

In W.P. No. 38298 of 2024, the Writ Court held that recovery was impermissible under the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, while permitting the authorities to refix his pay in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders.

The State authorities appealed against the order dated 06.10.2025.

The dispute before the Division Bench concerned the validity of recovery of the excess payment and the direction permitting correction or refixation of pay.

Whether recovery of excess salary paid to the retired employee was permissible in the absence of misrepresentation or a clear undertaking, particularly where the recovery was made after a prolonged period?

Whether the authorities could nevertheless refix the employee’s pay in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders?

The Court applied the principle in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, that recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible in circumstances where it would cause undue hardship, including recovery from retired employees or after a prolonged period, particularly in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or a clear undertaking by the employee.

At the same time, an erroneous pay fixation may be corrected prospectively or otherwise refixed in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders; the bar generally concerns recovery of amounts already paid, not correction of an incorrect fixation.

The Division Bench found that the Writ Court had correctly distinguished between correction of pay fixation and recovery of amounts already paid.

Although the authorities retained the power to refix the employee’s pay according to the governing Rules and Government Orders, recovery of the excess salary after a prolonged period would cause hardship and was not justified in the absence of misrepresentation or a clear undertaking by the employee.

Applying Rafiq Masih, the Court upheld the direction permitting refixation but rejected the recovery of the excess amount.

The order of recovery was set aside, while the direction permitting refixation of the employee’s pay in accordance with the applicable Rules and Government Orders was confirmed.

The appellants were directed to refund to N. Gopalakrishnan any excess salary already recovered from him within twelve weeks from receipt of a copy of the judgment.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.