Recovery of excess salary is impermissible from retired Class III employees absent fraud or misrepresentation.

The petitioner, Nand Kumar Chandrakar, was a Constable in the Chhattisgarh Police Department, holding a Class-III post.

He retired from service on 30 November 2025.

The respondents alleged that he had received excess salary due to an erroneous fixation of pay and initiated recovery of ₹8,41,123.

An amount of ₹19,561 per month was deducted from his salary, allegedly under the apprehension that refusal to deposit the amount would affect payment of his retiral benefits.

The petitioner contended that the excess payment was not caused by fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts on his part.

The State sought time to file a reply but did not file one controverting the petitioner’s submissions.

Whether recovery of excess salary paid due to erroneous pay fixation could be effected from the petitioner, a retired Class-III employee, in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts?

Whether any undertaking or alleged consent by the petitioner could validate recovery otherwise impermissible under the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih?

The Court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, particularly the rule that recovery of excess payments is generally impermissible where the employee belongs to Class-III or Class-IV service, is retired or due to retire shortly, the excess payment relates to a period exceeding five years, or recovery would be inequitable, harsh, or arbitrary.

The Court also considered High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, observing that it did not overrule the protection available to Class-III and Class-IV employees under Rafiq Masih.

Reliance was further placed on the Chhattisgarh High Court Division Bench decision in State of Chhattisgarh v. Labha Ram Dhruv, WA No. 264 of 2020, which held that even an undertaking does not permit recovery from an employee belonging to Class-III or Class-IV service where recovery is otherwise impermissible under Rafiq Masih.

The Court found that the petitioner was a retired Constable holding a Class-III post and that the alleged excess payment resulted from the respondents’ own erroneous pay fixation.

There was no allegation that the petitioner had obtained the excess payment through fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts.

These facts fell squarely within the category identified in Rafiq Masih where recovery from Class-III employees is impermissible.

The Court also accepted that the petitioner had made or permitted payment under pressure arising from the apprehension that his retiral dues might otherwise be withheld.

Any undertaking or alleged consent could not override the substantive protection against recovery available to a Class-III employee under Rafiq Masih, as clarified by Jagdev Singh and Labha Ram Dhruv.

Accordingly, the recovery was held unsustainable.

The Court held that the respondents could not recover from the petitioner the excess amount paid due to erroneous pay fixation, since he was a retired Class-III employee and there was no fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts on his part.

The respondents were directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within three months from receipt of the order.

In the event of default, the recovered amount would carry interest at 6% per annum.