Recovery of excess salary paid due to administrative error without employee misrepresentation is impermissible after a long lapse of time.

The petitioner was appointed as a Copyist in 1999 and subsequently promoted through various posts, eventually serving as Central Nazir at the Sub-Court, Palacode.

On 24.08.2023, the 6th respondent issued an official memorandum asserting that the petitioner's pay had been incorrectly fixed since 14.01.1999.

Despite the petitioner submitting a reply on the same day, an impugned order was passed seeking the recovery of alleged excess salary amounting to Rs. 4,94,326/- from her Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (D.C.R.G.).

The petitioner challenged this recovery and the revision of pay under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the authorities are empowered to rectify errors in pay fixation and implement a revised pay scale in accordance with Pay Rules.

2. Whether the recovery of excess salary paid over a period of 24 years is permissible in the absence of misrepresentation by the employee.

Statement identifying that the State has the right to rectify erroneous pay fixations to prevent unjust gain of public money, but such rights are limited by the principles of equity and hardship.

The court primarily relied on the landmark precedent of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits recovery of excess payments from Class III/IV employees, or when the payment was made for over five years, or when recovery would be iniquitous and cause extreme hardship.

The court reasoned that the authorities have the inherent power to ensure correct pay fixation according to Government Orders, and thus the downward revision of future pay was sustaintable.

Regarding the recovery of past payments, the court found that the respondents failed to establish any misrepresentation or fraud by the petitioner.

Since the error was committed by the Establishment and the recovery spanned a period exceeding five years (specifically from 1999 to 2023), the court determined that enforcing recovery after such a long duration would cause "extreme hardship".

Applying the specific prohibitions from Rafiq Masih, the court concluded that the recovery was impermissible as it fell under the categories of recovery from long-standing excess payments and would be "iniquitous".

The Court partly allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the recovery of the excess amount of Rs. 4,94,326/- and directing the respondents to repay any amount already recovered to the petitioner within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.