The court ruled against wage recovery without prior notice, affirming workers' protections against arbitrary financial penalties.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus, seeking records relating to the order of recovery dated 21.05.2024, by which the salary of the petitioner was refixed. This order was passed by the first respondent. The petitioner seeks that the said order be quashed by this Court. The petitioner also seeks that the amount recovered be refunded.

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner, who is set to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2025 is currently employed as Selection Grade Superintendent in the respondent Department. He was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 24.02.1995. Subsequently, his post was upgraded to Upgrade Assistant on 03.01.2002, then further upgraded to Assistant on 02.05.2003, later to Selection Grade Assistant on 21.09.2011, and finally to Selection Grade Superintendent on 30.11.2011.

3.It is contended that based on a representation that the petitioner’s salary differed from that of another employee, the petitioner's salary was revisited and refixed, leading to the impugned order directing recovery of salary. It was contended that the promotion of the petitioner from Junior Assistant to Upgrade Assistant on 03.01.2002 was erroneous, and as a result, the petitioner was deemed liable to repay the excess amount received. However, this is an exercise that should have been undertaken at the earliest possible time. The Service Register is available with the respondents and must be counter-signed and verified by higher authorities annually. It should be ensured whether the petitioner’s salary was properly fixed, whether he was overdrawing salary and whether necessary increments and allowances were paid. This duty is not limited to the petitioner alone but extends to every employee. The responsibility lies with the Pay Disbursing Authority to verify the Service Register. If negligence occurred on their part, the employee cannot be subjected to undue hardship by an order of recovery issued after more than 10 years, in this case, nearly 15 years.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. The learned counsel specifically relied on the directions issued in paragraph No.18, which are as follows:

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship that 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarize 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 exceeding five years before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case where the Court concludes that recovery, if made, would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary to such an extent that it would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.”

5.It is also evident that the impugned order was issued without a pr