Retrospective salary recovery beyond ten years found impermissible under established judicial precedents.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner states that the petitioner is presently working as Gujarati Teacher (Part Time) with Full Time benefits. The petitioner was initially appointed as Gujarati Teacher (Part Time) with effect from 05.06.2000 and on completion of five years service, she was granted Full Time benefits as per Ext.P2 order of the 4^th respondent-AEO. The petitioner's probation was declared by the 5^th respondent with effect from 05.06.2001. The petitioner was thereafter granted yearly increments 1^st and 2^nd Time Bound Higher Grades and her salary was revised and re- fixed on the basis of the pay revision orders issued by the Government, from time to time. The petitioner is having only just two years service left for retirement.

2. The petitioner was informed by the Headmistress that the 3^rd respondent had raised an audit objection against the fixation of her salary pursuant to 2014 Pay Revision with effect from July, 2014, stating that the said fixation was done by giving weightage to her Part Time service with effect from 05.06.2000. Due to the said mistake, the petitioner is drawing excess salary and her salary has to be re-fixed from July, 2014. It was also ordered to refund the alleged excess receipt of salary from 2014. The petitioner was not at fault for the alleged mistake which happened at the hands of respondents 3 and 4. The respondents also has no case that the said alleged excess receipt of salary was due to any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner.

3. Immediately, on receipt of Ext.P3, a revised fixation statement was prepared and submitted to the 4^th respondent as per Ext.P4 and on that basis the 5^th respondent had revised the petitioner’s salary from July, 2014 and the petitioner is now drawing the eligible salary. In spite of the same, the 4^th respondent has reiterated the demand to refund the alleged excess salary and has threatened with recovery steps. The said stand taken by the respondents is against the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334] and the Bench decisions of this Hon'ble Court produced as Exts.P6 and P7. So, the petitioner is approaching this Court for redressal of her grievances.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 4.

5. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P5 orders by which recovery of alleged excess payment due to the alleged irregular fixation of pay, is sought to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner.

6. The alleged excess payment relates to the year 2014 Pay Revision. The recovery is sought to be effected after nearly 10 years. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that wrong fixation was corrected as per Ext.P4 and was accepted by Ext.P5. The petitioner is receiving only due salary now. If excess payment effected more than about 10 years ago is sought to be recovered now, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship.

7. I find that a similar issue came up before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court has declared that such recovery is not permissible in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra). A similar view was taken in Ext.P7 judgment in OP(KAT) No.95 of 2023. The issue is therefore covered in favour of the petitioner.

The writ petition is therefore allowed. Exts.P3 and P5 to the extent that they direct recovery from the salary of the petitioner, are quashed.

Sd/-