Recovery of Excess Salary Payments from Grade-IV Employees is Impermissible if Found Iniquitous or Harsh

The Petitioner, a Grade-IV employee (Peon) in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, approached the High Court regarding two grievances.

First, the non-consideration of his representation dated 13.12.2016 seeking exoneration in Disciplinary Proceeding (DP) Case No. 1/2007.

Second, he challenged the recovery of Rs. 1,81,339/- initiated via order dated 25.07.2022 following a detection of overdrawal in salary since March 2011 due to a calculation error by officials.

Although the Petitioner initially requested to pay the amount in 60 installments of Rs. 3,000/- (rather than the directed 37 installments of Rs. 5,000/-), which was granted, he filed this petition in 2025 to halt further recovery as he is due for superannuation in two years.

1. Whether the representation dated 13.12.2016 warrants consideration despite the final disposal of the disciplinary proceedings.

2. Whether the recovery of excess payments from a Grade-IV employee, made due to administrative error over a period exceeding five years, is legally permissible.

State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (2015) 4 SCC 334.

The "Rafiq Masih guidelines" mandate that recovery by employers is impermissible in specific situations of hardship, including: (i) recovery from Class-III and Class-IV (Group C and D) employees; (ii) recovery when excess payment was made for a period in excess of five years before the recovery order; and (v) cases where recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary.

Regarding the first issue, the Court noted that DP Case No. 1/2007 was finalized on 23.12.2016 with a specific penalty, rendering the Petitioner’s prior representation infructuous as the disciplinary proceedings were never formally challenged.

Regarding the second issue, the Court found that the Petitioner, as a Grade-IV employee, falls directly under the protective umbrella of the Rafiq Masih precedent.

The Court observed that the overdrawal began in 2011, making the recovery for the period prior to five years before the 2022 order a violation of Clause (iii) of the Rafiq Masih guidelines.

Furthermore, the Court reasoned that continuing recovery from an employee with limited resources who is approaching retirement would be "grossly iniquitous and harsh," thereby violating the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

On the second issue, while the Court did not interfere with the recoveries already made up to the date of the judgment, it held that further recovery is impermissible.

The Court directed that no further recovery be made from the Petitioner's salary starting from May 2026 and ordered the State to intimate the Office of the Accountant General, Assam, accordingly.