Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order from the Additional District Judge regarding the recovery of excess pay amounting to Rs.4,47,106/- for the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.10.2025. The petitioner, who was appointed as Stenographer Grade III in 1999 and later promoted to Stenographer Grade I in 2015, faced recovery due to an internal audit that identified an error in salary fixation. The petitioner contended that the recovery was unjust and would cause extreme hardship, especially since there was no misrepresentation on her part. The court noted the legal principles established by the Supreme Court regarding recovery of excess payments, emphasizing that recovery should not occur in cases of undue hardship, particularly when the excess payment was made over a long period. The court confirmed the revised pay fixation but set aside the recovery order, directing the respondents to repay the excess amount within 12 weeks. The writ petition was thus partly allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Recovery of Excess Salary - Justification for Recovery - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The court held that recovery of excess salary after a long period without misrepresentation by the employee would cause undue hardship, thus setting aside the recovery order while confirming the revised pay fixation. (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the recovery of excess salary from the petitioner was justified under the circumstances.
Final Decision
The court confirmed the revised pay fixation but set aside the recovery order, directing repayment of the excess amount within 12 weeks.
Law Points
- Writ of certiorari
- recovery of excess salary
- pay fixation errors
- principles of hardship in recovery
- audit objections
