Recovery of excess payments from retiring employees is impermissible if the excess is due to employer error.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2026 The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing respondents to Refund the amount recovered from the DCRG of the petitioner forthwith;

(ii) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records relating to Item No. 9 and 12 in Ext.P4 and Item No. 9 and 12 in Exbt. P5 and quash the same;

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing respondents to fix and regularize the pay as per the option form submitted by the petitioner without any change;

i(v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing respondents to disburse the pension and pensionary benefits in the revised scale as per the option submitted by the petitioner;

v) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered service with the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation on 23.07.2000 as a Reserve Driver and retired on 30.09.2017 as a Vehicle Supervisor. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3073 of 2018, the petitioner’s monthly pension was disbursed along with the other retirement benefits. However, an amount of Rs.50,817/- was deducted from the Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) towards recovery of alleged excess pay, without the consent of the petitioner.

3. In this regard, the 4th respondent, the District Transport Officer, issued a notice dated 23.05.2018 under Rule 3 , Part III of the Kerala Service Rules , intimating the petitioner that the said amount would be recovered from his DCRG and directing him to file objections, if any, within 30 days. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his objection on 16.06.2018.

4. It is contended that the error in the Service Book at the time of pay revision fixation was not attributable to the petitioner. As per the audit note dated 19.03.2018 issued by the Executive Director (Administration), the petitioner had opted for fixation in the 2006 scale with effect from 21.05.2006. However, the same was wrongly corrected by the Superintendent (Audit) as 26.05.2006, resulting in incorrect pay fixation and consequential excess payment. The petitioner contends that the excess drawal occurred solely due to the mistake committed by the department and not due to any fault on his part.

5. In such circumstances, the petitioner relies on the decision in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ], particularly paragraph 18(ii), wherein it has been held that recovery from a retired employee, or an employee who is due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, is impermissible when the excess payment occurred due to the employer’s mistake.

6. Considering the facts of the present case, it is evident that the excess payment was made due to an error committed by the department. Therefore, the recovery of the said amount from the petitioner cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside item Nos.9 and 12 in Ext.P4 and item Nos.9 and 12 in Ext.P5. The respondents are directed to refund the amount already recovered, together with statutory interest, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-