Refixation of pay is Permissible but Recovery of Excess Payments from Retired Employees is Legally Impermissible

The 1st Respondent, a retired Sub-Inspector of Police, filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 25046 of 2025) challenging an order issued by the Additional Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Chennai.

The challenged order directed the re-fixation of his pay and the recovery of an alleged excess payment amounting to Rs. 2,10,845/-.

The Writ Court upheld the re-fixation of pay but set aside the recovery of the past excess amount.

The State of Tamil Nadu filed this Writ Appeal (WA No. 2072 of 2026) contesting the Writ Court’s order.

1. Whether the order of the Writ Court setting aside the recovery of excess pay while confirming the re-fixation of pay was legally sustainable.

State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits the recovery of excess payments from employees, particularly retired employees or those nearing retirement, when such payments were made by the employer due to a mistaken calculation and not due to any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee.

The Division Bench examined the findings of the Writ Court and noted that the original order of recovery was rightly set aside based on the precedent set in Rafiq Masih.

The Court observed that in similar circumstances, it had consistently passed orders confirming the re-fixation of pay (to ensure future accuracy) while quashing recovery proceedings to prevent undue hardship to the retired individual.

Upon review, the Court found no legal infirmity in the Writ Court's decision to treat the re-fixation and recovery as distinct issues, allowing the former while prohibiting the latter.

The Appellants were directed to repay any amount already recovered from the 1st Respondent on account of the re-fixation within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Writ Appeal was disposed of with no costs.