Recovery of excess payments made beyond five years is impermissible according to established law.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 10.03.2022, passed by the second respondent, to recover the payments made to the petitioner towards incentive increment in the year 2016.

2. The petitioner claims that only in accordance with her entitlement on account of acquiring B.Ed. qualification, she was granted incentive increment as per the Government Order in the year 2016. She also claims that the impugned recovery order has been passed contrary to the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334

3. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents 1 & 2 reiterating the contents of the impugned order and they would submit that only due to the fact that incentive increment was paid to the petitioner wrongly, they had to recover the same from the petitioner.

4. The law is now well settled by the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein, it has been held that recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued, is legally impermissible.

5. In the case on hand, recovery is sought to be made from the petitioner in respect of the incentive increment granted to the petitioner in the year 2016 i.e., five years prior to the passing of the impugned recovery order dated 10.03.2022. The petitioner is also having the benefit of interim stay of the operation of the impugned recovery order pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 30.09.2022. In view of the settled law and in view of the fact that recovery is sought to be made by the respondents after a lapse of more than five years from the date when the petitioner was awarded incentive increment, the impugned recovery order has to be quashed and this writ petition has to be allowed.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery order dated 10.03.2022, passed by the second respondent, is hereby quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.