Recoveries from retired employees based on erroneous salary payments are impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and judicial discretion in enforcing employee rights.

ORDER :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Rajashekhar Burji appearing for the petitioners, learned AGA and learned counsels Sri. K.L. Patil and Sri. Iranagouda K. Kabbur representing respondents.

2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Quash the Order dated 08.05.2025 issued by the 5^th Respondent bearing No.Ka.Vi.Vi / Ha.Vi / Vetana / 2024-25 / 40, No.Ka.Vi.Vi / Ha.Vi / Vetana / 2024-25 / 30, No.Ka.Vi.Vi / Ha.Vi / Vetana / 2024-25 / 36, No.Ka.Vi.Vi / Ha.Vi / Vetana / 2024-25 / 155, No.Ka.Vi.Vi / Ha.Vi / Vetana / 2024-25 / 167, No.Ka.Vi.Vi / Ha.Vi / Vetana / 2024-25 / 99, No.Ka.Vi.Vi / Ha.Vi / Vetana / 2024-25 / 157, No.Ka.Vi.Vi / Ha.Vi / Vetana / 2024-25 / 169, No.Ka.Vi.Vi / Ha.Vi / Vetana / 2024-25 / 51, produced at Annexure – L to L8, respectively.

b) Consequently Direct the Respondent No.4 and 5 to reimburse / repay the amount deducted from the salary of the Petitioners respectively.

c) Pass such other order or direction, this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstance of the case.”

3. The petitioners are in the cadre of Professors in respondent No.4 University. The issue in the lis does not relate to the service of the petitioners in the University or the incidental conditions thereon. The petitioners in terms of law, on 24.12.2009 are granted the benefit of the recommendation of sixth pay commission, whereby the pay was increased. The petitioners take the said benefit and come to the age of superannuation in the year 2025 and few of them have already retired. At the fag end of service or after retirement, the University is said to have realised on the strength of certain audit objections that said to have been realised that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the sixth pay commission and they were erroneously granted the said benefit on 24.12.2009.

4. In that light, the University now passes the impugned orders directing recovery of the excess pay that was paid to these petitioners on and from 24.12.2009. The challenge is to those recovery orders.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners did not represent before the authorities that they were entitled to the sixth pay commission, but on the strength of law, they were granted the benefit of sixth pay commission and the pay was accordingly fixed. The pay of the petitioners cannot be varied or recovery cannot be done. He would submit that the issue in the lis stands completely unsolved by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 .

6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. If the recovery orders that are called in question are noticed, it is undoubtedly an order of recovery that directs recovery for a pay scale that was granted on 24.12.2009, the sixth pay scale and on 16.03.2019, the seventh pay scale, both of which are now sought to be recovered. The issue whether recovery can be made on an erroneous pay that was paid to the petitioners is completely answered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment (supra), wherein at paragraph 18, the same reads as under:

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in case