Pay re-fixation post-retirement requires adherence to principles of natural justice; excess payments cannot be recovered without misrepresentation or notice, reaffirming judicial protective principles for employees.

O R D E R

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated

05.05.2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from service as Headmistress on 30.11.2024, and was permitted an extension of service up to 31.05.2025. After her retirement, vide impugned order dated 05.05.2025, the fourth respondent had re-fixed her pay with effect from 14.10.2018, and ordered recovery of the alleged excess amount paid beyond the petitioner's entitlement with effect from 01.01.2006. The learned counsel further contended that the pay re-fixation was made administratively and there was no misrepresentation on her part. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that before passing any re-fixation order, the fourth respondent had not given any notice to the petitioner. Therefore, ipso facto, the impugned order is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors ( SLP(C) No.5918 of 2024 dated 04.04.2025 ). Hence, prayed to interfere with the impugned order.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first to fourth respondents would strongly object to the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the pay re-fixation was effected based on the Government Letter dated 15.12.2023, and that while re-fixing her pay in the year 2008, when she was permitted to take up the post of Elementary School Headmistress, there was a wrong fixation. Therefore, the fourth respondent is entitled to recover the said amount from the petitioner. He would further submit that as and when the re-fixation is made, the employee concerned would give an undertaking that if any excess amount is received, they would repay the same. In view of such an undertaking, there cannot be any objection to the petitioner regarding the impugned order. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that in respect of the re-fixation, since it is an expert domain and was fixed based on Government Guidelines, the petitioner cannot challenge the said order, and the same is not amenable to judicial review.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. The admitted fact of the case is that the petitioner retired on

30.11.2024 as the Headmistress of the Primary School. It is the further admitted fact that the impugned order was issued subsequent to her retirement, viz., after six months. While looking at the impugned order, according to the fourth respondent, the pay ought to have been fixed as 9300 + 34800 + 4500; instead, it has been wrongly fixed as 15600 + 39100 +

5400.

7. Though it is the contention of the learned Government Advocate that there was a wrong fixation, it is not their case that such fixation was made on the misrepresentation of the petitioner or on the basis of the submission of any bogus record. Therefore, it is amply clear that this could only be an administrative lapse for which we could not blame the petitioner. Apart from that, the alleged recovery was ordered to be effected since 2008, which is beyond the period of five years. This issue was dealt with by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inState of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in[(2015) 4 SCC 334], where it was held that whenever any excess payment was made beyond the period of five years and in the absence of any misrepresentation by the employee, the same cannot be recovered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that if any reco