Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Madras considered a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by T. Seshadri, a Dalayat in the subordinate judiciary, challenging a recovery order for excess pay of Rs.39,343. The petitioner had been initially appointed as an Office Assistant, later promoted, and in 2010 was granted a Justice Shetty Commission increment under G.O. Ms. No. 1011 Home(Cts-V) dated 07.12.2010 while serving as Dalayat. In 2024, following an internal audit objection, the 4th respondent (Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur) held that the increment was inadmissible because the post of Dalayat was not included in the eligible categories, and accordingly revised his pay and ordered recovery of the excess amount. The petitioner contended that the recovery after fourteen years without any misrepresentation on his part would cause extreme hardship and was impermissible in law. The court accepted that public authorities have the power to rectify erroneous pay fixations to prevent unjust enrichment, and confirmed the pay revision prospectively. However, relying on the principles enumerated by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, the court held that recovery of excess payments from employees in Class III and IV service, when the excess was paid for more than five years and the employee was not responsible for any misrepresentation, would be iniquitous and arbitrary. The court found that the respondents could not establish any misrepresentation by the petitioner, that the error was that of the Establishment, and that recovery after such a long lapse would result in extreme hardship. Consequently, the impugned proceeding was set aside only insofar as it ordered recovery; the revision of pay was confirmed. The court further directed that if any amount had already been recovered, it be refunded within twelve weeks. The writ petition was partly allowed and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Fixation and Recovery of Excess Pay - Recovery of excess pay from employee when excess payment was due to employer's error, no misrepresentation by employee, and after a long lapse, is impermissible; pay revision confirmed - Constitution of India, Article 226; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 - Petitioner, a Dalayat, received Justice Shetty Commission increment; audit found it inadmissible, pay revised and recovery ordered. Court held revision of pay is justified to prevent unjust enrichment, but recovery of Rs.39,343 is set aside as it would cause extreme hardship and the employee had not misrepresented; recovery to be refunded if already made within 12 weeks (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether recovery of excess pay and allowance from a Class IV employee based on a pay fixation error without misrepresentation and after a long lapse is valid in law.
Final Decision
Writ petition is partly allowed. The revision of pay effected pursuant to the Audit Objection is confirmed, but the recovery of excess pay is set aside. The excess amount, if any recovered, is directed to be re-paid to the petitioner within 12 weeks. No costs.
Law Points
- Unjust gain of public money is impermissible
- employers may rectify pay fixation errors
- recovery of excess pay barred for Class III/IV employees without misrepresentation if causing hardship
- State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih principles apply
- recovery impermissible when excess payment over five years old
- revision of pay confirmed prospectively
