Recovery of Salary Paid for Overstay in Service From Class IV Employee Is Impermissible

The applicant, a Class-IV employee of the West Central Railway, retired on 31.08.2017 based on a recorded date of birth of 14.08.1957

Following his retirement, the respondents issued orders dated 16.04.2018 and 18.04.2018 seeking to recover ₹9,42,370/- from his retiral dues

The recovery was premised on the allegation that his actual date of birth was 14.08.1955, meaning he had overstayed in service for two years

The respondents claimed the applicant failed to intimate the correct date and that the service record had been altered

The applicant challenged the recovery, noting he had actually worked during those two years and that, as a Class-IV employee, recovery is barred by law

1. Whether the respondents are legally permitted to recover salary and emoluments paid to a Class-IV employee for a period of alleged overstay in service when the employee actually performed the duties of the post.

2. Whether the recovery from retiral dues is permissible in light of the guidelines established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding retired employees and lower-tier service grades.

State of Punjab others v. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (2015), which prohibits recovery from Class-III or Class-IV employees and from retired employees where payments were mistakenly made by the employer

State of Bihar v. Pandey Jagdishwar Prasad (2009) and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana (1995), establishing that recovery cannot be effected from retiral dues for higher pay or benefits provided by mistake in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation

Kailash Singh v. State of Bihar (2005) was cited to affirm that recovery for alleged overstay is impermissible if the employee actually worked during that period

The Tribunal observed that the applicant's service book contained two conflicting dates of birth, a discrepancy the authorities failed to detect or rectify during his tenure

Since the respondents did not issue a retirement notice in 2015 and instead permitted the applicant to continue working and draw a salary, they received the benefit of his labor

The court reasoned that it is "iniquitous" to deduct salary for work already performed

Applying the Rafiq Masih criteria, the Tribunal found the recovery legally impermissible because the applicant belonged to Class-IV service and the recovery was initiated after his retirement

The Tribunal emphasized that even if a mistake occurred, the lack of timely detection by the department and the fact that work was rendered makes the recovery arbitrary

The Original Application was allowed, and the impugned orders dated 16.04.2018 and 18.04.2018 were quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to refund the recovered amount to the applicant within 60 days, though no interest was awarded