Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an order of recovery of excess pay and allowance from a district court employee. The petitioner, Sakthivel, was appointed as a Typist on 08.08.2009 and was working as Typist in the II Additional District Court, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District. The internal audit wing of the High Court discovered an inadmissible promotional increment arising from wrong fixation of salary and ordered recovery of Rs.2,08,991 for the period from 01.02.2011 to 30.06.2026. The petitioner challenged the recovery order of the third respondent dated 04.07.2026 by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari. The core legal question was whether recovery of excess pay from a Group C employee after more than five years, without any misrepresentation by the employee, was permissible in law. The petitioner contended that the error was committed by the establishment, that there was no misrepresentation on his part, and that recovery after a long lapse would cause extreme hardship. The respondents asserted that unjust gain of public money is impermissible and that competent authorities are empowered to rectify errors in pay fixation and grant the correct pay. The High Court referred to the legal principles summarised by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which held that recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service is impermissible when excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued, and where recovery would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary. The court found that the petitioner belonged to Class III/IV service, the excess payment was made for more than five years, and the respondents were unable to establish any misrepresentation by the employee. It was held that recovery at this length of time would result in extreme hardship to the employee. Accordingly, the High Court confirmed the revision of pay effected pursuant to the audit objection but set aside the order of recovery of excess pay alone. The court directed that any excess amount recovered from the petitioner be repaid within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was partly allowed; WMP No. 33401 of 2026 was ordered and WMP No. 33402 of 2026 was closed, with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Salary - Impermissible Recovery from Class III/IV Employees - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner, a Typist in the District Court, was subjected to recovery of Rs.2,08,991 for the period 01.02.2011 to 30.06.2026 following an internal audit objection; the High Court held that recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service is impermissible when excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued and there is no misrepresentation by the employee, relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334; therefore the recovery order was set aside and any recovered amount directed to be repaid within 12 weeks. Held that recovery would result in extreme hardship and was iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary, outweighing the employer's right to recover. (Paras 4-6) B) Service Law - Pay Fixation Audit Objection - Employer's Right to Correct Erroneous Pay Fixation - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The internal audit wing found an inadmissible promotional increment due to wrong fixation of salary, and the court confirmed the revised pay fixation made by the respondents in accordance with Pay Rules and Government Orders; unjust gain of public money is impermissible under law, and authorities are empowered to rectify errors in fixation of pay, but recovery from the employee was not permissible under the Rafiq Masih exceptions. Held that revision of pay is confirmed but recovery of excess pay alone is set aside, partly allowing the writ petition. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,08,991 from a Group C employee for the period 01.02.2011 to 30.06.2026 based on an audit objection is permissible when the pay fixation error was committed by the establishment and there was no misrepresentation by the employee.
Final Decision
Writ petition partly allowed; the revision of pay effected pursuant to the audit objection was confirmed, but the recovery of excess pay alone was set aside; the excess amount recovered, if any, directed to be re-paid to the petitioner within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; impugned order set aside only with reference to recovery of excess salary; WMP No. 33401 of 2026 ordered and WMP No. 33402 of 2026 closed; no costs.
Law Points
- recovery of excess pay from Class III and Class IV employees is impermissible if excess payment made for over five years and no misrepresentation by employee
- employer can rectify erroneous pay fixation to prevent unjust gain of public money
- recovery barred where it would cause extreme hardship
- State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih principles
- writ of certiorari under Article 226
