Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, who was appointed as a Senior Bailiff in 1993, received an Official Memorandum dated 09.06.2022 from the 6th respondent stating that his pay had been wrongly fixed and excess salary had been paid, requiring recovery. He replied on 04.07.2022, but the impugned order dated 02.12.2022 was passed ordering recovery of Rs.2,62,511/- for the period from 01.06.1993 to 30.11.2022. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution sought to quash this recovery order and to direct the respondents not to recover the alleged excess amount. The petitioner contended that there was no misrepresentation on his part and that the error was committed by the Establishment. The respondents argued that unjust gain of public money is impermissible and that the authorities are empowered to rectify pay fixation errors. The court noted that while the respondents are competent to revise pay fixation, they failed to establish any misrepresentation by the employee. It held that recovery after such a long period would cause extreme hardship to the employee. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, the court concluded that recovery in such circumstances is impermissible. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the recovery order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to continue the revised pay fixation without recovery of the alleged excess amount.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Salary - Departmental Error - No Misrepresentation - Hardship - The court held that recovery of excess salary paid due to an error in pay fixation committed by the Establishment, in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee, after a long period of almost 29 years, would cause extreme hardship to the employee and is impermissible, relying on the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether recovery of excess salary paid due to wrong pay fixation can be ordered after a long period without establishing misrepresentation by the employee
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned recovery order dated 02.12.2022 is quashed. The respondents are directed to continue the revised pay fixation and not to recover the alleged excess amount of Rs.2,62,511/- from the petitioner.
Law Points
- recovery of excess salary
- pay fixation error
- hardship
- unjust enrichment
- misrepresentation
- State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih principle
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 8
S.M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar
Mr.A.Sakthivel for petitioner; Ms.B.Poongkhulalia for R1, R3 & R6; Dr.R.Gouri for R2 & R5; Mr.T.Ravi Kumar for R4
The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai-104 & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Service matter – writ petition under Article 226 against recovery of alleged excess salary due to erroneous pay fixation.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the order dated 02.12.2022 of the 6th respondent and to direct the respondents to continue the existing pay fixation without recovering the alleged excess amount.
Filing Reason
The 6th respondent passed an order on 02.12.2022 directing recovery of Rs.2,62,511/- as excess salary paid for the period from 01.06.1993 to 30.11.2022, which petitioner alleged was due to no fault of his own.
Issues
Whether recovery of excess salary paid due to wrong pay fixation can be ordered after a long period of nearly 29 years in the absence of any misrepresentation by the employee?
Whether the impugned recovery order is contrary to the principles laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih regarding hardship and recoveries from employees?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that the excess payment was due to a departmental error, he made no misrepresentation, and recovery after long years of service would cause extreme hardship.
Respondents argued that unjust gain of public money is impermissible and the authorities are competent to rectify pay fixation errors and recover excess amounts.
Ratio Decidendi
Where an employee has received excess salary due to an error in pay fixation committed by the Establishment, and there is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, recovery of such excess after a long period causing extreme hardship is impermissible. The principle laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 applies, and recovery in such cases would be unjust.
Judgment Excerpts
Unjust gain of public money is impermissible under law. In such circumstances, the authorities competent are empowered to rectify the errors in fixation of pay and grant the correct pay as applicable.
However, the respondents are unable to establish that there was a misrepresentation on the part of the employee during fixation of pay. It is an error committed by the Establishment, for which, the petitioner cannot be penalised after a lapse of many years. Recovery of excess salary at this length of time would result in extreme hardship to the employee.
It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement... based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, ...
Procedural History
The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directly before the High Court challenging the recovery order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the 6th respondent.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
