Back
Bars Recovery of Excess Salary from Retired Class-III Employee
A Cannot Override Legal Protection
The at Bilaspur has delivered a significant ruling shielding Class-III and Class-IV government employees from , holding that such recovery remains impermissible in law even when the employee has signed a agreeing to the deduction.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, hearing a filed by Tulsi Ram Bhardwaj, a retired Sub-Inspector, directed the State to refund ₹6,26,104 that had been recovered from the petitioner towards excess salary allegedly paid due to .
The Story Behind the Recovery
Tulsi Ram Bhardwaj retired from service on after serving in the . At the fag end of his career, the respondent authorities issued a letter demanding recovery of ₹6,26,104 — an amount allegedly paid in excess due to wrong fixation of pay.
According to the petitioner, he was compelled to give consent for the deduction after being threatened that his would be withheld if he refused. Consequently, ₹26,404 was deducted from his salary, and he deposited an additional ₹6,00,000 through a Treasury Challan in the name of the Superintendent of Police, Raipur.
The Legal Battle
, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the excess payment was not the result of any by the petitioner. He contended that recovery from Class-III employees after a long lapse of time is not permissible, placing reliance on the 's decision in .
The State, represented by Deputy Government Advocate , opposed the petition, arguing that the deduction was made pursuant to the furnished by the petitioner and that there was no arbitrariness on the part of the respondents.
The Court's Reasoning
The Court noted that it was undisputed that the petitioner held a Class-III post and that the excess payment resulted solely from . Crucially, the respondents did not allege any on the petitioner's part.
Referring to the 's landmark judgment in Rafiq Masih , the Court highlighted the situations where recovery would be impermissible, including recovery from , recovery from retired employees, and cases where excess payment was made more than five years before the recovery order was issued.
The Court also addressed the State's argument regarding the . It observed that the consent was obtained on , and the petitioner's submission that he signed under pressure and threat could not be overlooked.
Key Observations
The Court made several pivotal observations:
"Even if is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III or Class-IV service, recovery of excess amount paid from him/her is impermissible."
"The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has submitted the and subsequently deposited the amount under the pressure and threat that he may not be paid , cannot be overlooked."
"Petitioner cannot be compelled to return the amount which has been paid by the respondents on their own without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of petitioner."
The Court also relied on the decision of the in , which clarified that even when an is submitted by an employee belonging to Class-III or Class-IV service, the law declared in Rafiq Masih continues to hold the field. The 's later judgment in was noted as having clarified, but not overruled, the principles in Rafiq Masih .
The Verdict
Allowing the , the Court held that the respondents cannot be permitted to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount paid in excess. The respondents were directed to refund the recovered amount within three months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the amount would carry interest at 6% per annum.
This ruling reinforces the protective framework established by the for lower-ranking government employees, ensuring that administrative errors in pay fixation do not result in financial hardship for those who have served the state.
