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

The petitioner was appointed as a Night Watchman on 14 December 2009 and was subsequently promoted as an Office Assistant with effect from 15 December 2014.

Following an internal audit, the respondents concluded that an inadmissible promotional increment had been granted due to erroneous pay fixation and ordered recovery of ₹1,21,671 towards excess pay and allowances paid from 20 December 2014 to 31 December 2022 and from 1 January 2023 to 31 October 2025.

The petitioner challenged the recovery order dated 3 November 2025 in Dis. No. 2212/2025 and sought refund of the amounts deducted from his salary.

Whether the respondents were entitled to revise the petitioner’s pay fixation pursuant to the audit objection and recover the alleged excess salary and allowances paid over several years?

Whether recovery of the excess amount was impermissible in the absence of any misrepresentation by the petitioner and where the recovery would cause hardship after a substantial lapse of time?

The Court applied the principle that authorities competent under the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders may rectify erroneous pay fixation and continue the correct revised fixation, since an unjustified gain of public money cannot be permitted.

However, it relied on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which holds that recovery of excess payments may be impermissible, inter alia, where recovery is from lower-level employees, where the excess payment has continued for more than five years before the recovery order, or where recovery would be inequitable, harsh, or arbitrary.

The Court further applied the principle that an employee should not suffer for an establishment’s pay-fixation error in the absence of misrepresentation, particularly where recovery after many years would cause extreme hardship.

The Court distinguished between correction of the erroneous pay fixation and recovery of the amounts already paid.

It accepted that the respondents could revise the petitioner’s pay in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders, as retaining an incorrect financial benefit would amount to unjust gain from public funds.

However, the respondents failed to establish that the petitioner had misrepresented any fact or contributed to the erroneous fixation.

Since the alleged excess payments extended over a period substantially exceeding five years and recovery was ordered only after a long lapse of time, the Court found that recovery would impose extreme hardship and fall within the impermissible categories identified in Rafiq Masih.

The writ petition was partly allowed.

The Court confirmed the revision of the petitioner’s pay pursuant to the audit objection but set aside the recovery of ₹1,21,671 towards excess pay and allowances.

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

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.