Recovery of excess salary was set aside under the protections in *Rafiq Masih*.

The petitioner, a Graduate Teacher, challenged the District Elementary Educational Officer’s order concerning pay fixation and recovery, seeking stepping-up of his pay on par with the second respondent

The Court considered the pay-fixation issue in light of G.O.Ms.No.164, School Education Department, dated 16 July 2025, and the recovery issue under the principles in *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih*

The petition identifies the challenged order as dated 17 February 2016, while the operative portion refers to it as dated 17 February 2026

1. Whether the petitioner’s claim for stepping-up of pay should be considered in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.164, School Education Department, dated 16 July 2025

2. Whether recovery of the alleged excess payment from the petitioner should be set aside under the principles in *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih*

The Court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in *State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)*, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which identifies categories in which recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible, including recovery from Group C/D employees, retired employees or those nearing retirement, and cases involving payments made for more than five years, as well as cases where recovery would be inequitable, harsh or arbitrary

For the pay issue, the Court relied on G.O.Ms.No.164, School Education Department, dated 16 July 2025, and the Division Bench decision in *The Director of School Education v. G. Malathi*, 2026 MHC 2717, which directed consideration of a claim under that Government Order

Article 226 of the Constitution was invoked as the basis for the writ petition

The Court treated the pay-stepping-up issue as governed by the approach in *G. Malathi* and directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s claim under G.O.Ms.No.164 rather than granting the requested stepping-up outright

As to recovery, it relied on *Rafiq Masih* and followed an earlier order of the Court applying those principles to recovery of excess salary; on that basis, it set aside the recovery order

The judgment does not identify which specific *Rafiq Masih* category applied to this petitioner

The first respondent was directed to consider the petitioner’s stepping-up claim in accordance with law and G.O.Ms.No.164, School Education Department, dated 16 July 2025, as expeditiously as possible; the recovery order was set aside

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed