Recovery of excess payments impermissible from retired employees, as per Rafiq Masih guidelines.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.388/A1/2024 dated 04.11.2025 issued by the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal while seeking consequential direction to the respondents 4 to 7 to disburse the death cum retirement gratuity, encashment of earned leave, unearned leave to the petitioner within the time period stipulated by this Court.

2.Through the impugned proceedings, the fourth respondent re-fixed the grade pay of the petitioner at Rs.4700/- in the place of Rs.5400/- with effect from 19.09.2011 and also cancelled the incentive increment that was granted to the petitioner for having acquired B.Ed., qualification. The said incentive increment was awarded with effect from 01.06.2012. The petitioner availed the benefit of the said increment till the date of superannuation i.e 31.05.2024.

3. At the threshold, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not insisting the relief sought in the writ petition insofar as cancellation of incentive increment is concerned, but only concerned with the recovery ordered through the impugned proceedings being the amounts paid to the petitioner from 01.06.2012 towards the incentive increment for acquiring B.Ed., qualification.

4. Insofar as the issue of recovery is concerned, the same is now governed by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

“18. 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.

(iii) 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.

(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 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 employers right to recover.”

5. The case of the petitioner would straightaway fall under Class(ii) of paragraph 12 above as the petitioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of Superannuation on 31.05.2024 and the impugned proceeding came to be issued only after the superannuation of the petitioner. Therefore, the recovery that is contemplated being the excess payment paid towards the incentive increment from 01.06.2012 cannot be allowed. Therefore, the impugned proceedings ordering for recovery is liable to be quashed.

6. Insofar as re-fixing the grade pay of the petitioner at Rs. 4700 instead of Rs.5400/- is concerned, the said issue is squarely covered by an order passed by co-ordinate bench at Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.No.12275 of 2024 and batch dated 02.03.2026. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader agreed that the said issue can be disposed of i