Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by a Sheristadar working under the Subordinate Judge, Tirukoilur, challenging an office order for recovery of excess pay and allowances of Rs.2,73,865. The petitioner had been promoted from Assistant to Bench Clerk Grade III on 11.08.2011 and was granted a promotional increment at 3% with pay fixed at 9850+2800 G.P. in the scale of pay PB1-5200-20220+2800 G.P. After a significant lapse of time, an audit report raised an objection that the promotional increment was inadmissible, leading to the impugned recovery order dated 24.11.2025. The petitioner contended that the excess payment resulted from a departmental error and not from any misrepresentation on his part, and that recovery after fourteen years would cause extreme hardship. The respondents argued that unjust enrichment of public money must be rectified. The Court analyzed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, particularly the situations where recovery would be impermissible, including when the employee belongs to Class III or IV service and when the excess payment has been made for a period exceeding five years before the recovery order. The Court noted that the respondents could not establish any misrepresentation or fault by the petitioner, and the error was solely that of the Establishment. Considering the long passage of time and the hardship that recovery would entail, the Court held that recovery was impermissible. Accordingly, the revision of pay was confirmed, but the recovery portion of the order was quashed, and any amount already recovered was directed to be refunded within twelve weeks. The writ petition was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Pay - Equitable Principles - Constitution of India, Article 226 - State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 - The petitioner, a Sheristadar (Group C employee), was promoted in 2011 and pay fixed with an increment later found inadmissible; employer sought recovery of Rs.2,73,865 for the period 11.08.2011 to 30.11.2025. The Court held that recovery after 14 years would cause extreme hardship, and as the petitioner was not responsible for the error, it was impermissible under the principles in Rafiq Masih. The revision of pay was confirmed, but the recovery order was quashed. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether recovery of excess pay from an employee for a period of over five years, resulting from an error by the employer, is permissible in law?
Final Decision
Writ petition partly allowed. Revision of pay confirmed, but recovery of excess pay set aside. Any recovered amount to be refunded within 12 weeks.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Recovery of excess pay impermissible when excess payment made for over five years and employee not at fault
- unjust enrichment does not override equitable balance
- principles from State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih applied
