Recovery of excess salary from Class-III/IV employees or after five years is impermissible, and employees cannot be penalized via reversion for promotion errors made by authorities unless misrepresentation is proven.

Prayer :

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in impugned orders vide proceedings P.No.PU/R/R6/001754/23F69162/2023-2, P.No.PU/R/R6/001754/23F69162/2023-1, P.No.PU/R/R6/001754/23F69162/2023-4, P.No.PU/R/R6/001754/23F69162/2023-3 dated 30.03.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to pay the salary and other emoluments in the scale of pay of Rs.15600 - 39100 + Grade Pay of Rs.5400 to the petitioners which they are entitled to as Section Officer.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the third respondent dated 30.03.2023, thereby reverting the petitioners from the post of Section Officer to the post of Assistant and also ordered to recover the excess payment of salary.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

It is seen that a similar issue has already been dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.13716 of 2025. This Court, by an order dated 11.11.2025, allowed the writ petition and held as follows :

“7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :-

“12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise 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. Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iii) 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.

(iv) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.”

Thus it is clear that recovery shall not be made after the period of five years.

8. Further, as far as the promotions are concerned, the petitioner was no way responsible for the promotions granted by the 2nd respondent. It is the duty of the authorities concerned to verify the records before granting promotions to their employees. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner made any false representation or mis-representation in respect of his promotions. Therefore, the fault, if any, committed by the authorities concerned, cannot be foisted as against the petitioner by reverting him from the post of Section Officer to the post of Assistant, that too, lower by two posts. Further, the show cause notice was issued on the strength of the objections raised by the Audit Department. The audit objections related to the Audit Department cannot interfere with the decision of the 2nd respondent to grant promotions, since it has no power to raise any objections relating to any promotions.

9. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and accordingly, stands quashed. The respondents are directed to disburse all the service and terminal benefits to the p