Recovery of Excess Salary Paid Without Misrepresentation is Impermissible After Long Lapse of Time.

The petitioner, K. Venkatesan, was appointed as a Copyist in 1996 and subsequently promoted to Junior Assistant (2001), Assistant (2007), and Bench Clerk III (2010)

In 2011, the Principal District Munsif Court sanctioned an additional increment to the petitioner based on G.O.Ms.No.234 and G.O.Ms.No.450

Following an audit report by the second respondent, it was determined that this increment was inadmissible. Consequently, the 4th respondent issued an order (D.No.1849 dated 28.11.2025) to recover excess pay and allowances totaling ₹2,42,867/- for the period from 15.01.2010 to 31.10.2025

The petitioner challenged this recovery by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

1. Whether the authorities are empowered to rectify errors in pay fixation and grant the correct pay in cases of unjust gain of public money

2. Whether the recovery of excess salary paid over a long period due to administrative error (without misrepresentation by the employee) is permissible under law

Legal principles established by the Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015 4 SCC 334), which identifies specific situations where recovery by employers is impermissible.

Key criteria include: (i) recovery from Class III and IV employees; (ii) recovery when the excess payment was made for a period exceeding five years before the order; and (v) cases where recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary

The Court acknowledged that while authorities have the right to rectify erroneous pay fixations to prevent unjust gain of public money, such power is subject to the principles of equity.

In this case, the respondents failed to establish any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner; the excess payment was an error committed by the Establishment.

The Court reasoned that enforcing recovery after 15 years (2010 to 2025) would cause extreme hardship to the employee.

Applying the Rafiq Masih precedent, the Court found that the duration of the mistake and the nature of the employee’s service rendered the recovery legally impermissible.

The Court partly allowed the Writ Petition and the respondents were directed to refund any amount already recovered from the petitioner within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.