COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

These writ petitions have been filed to call for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in Roc.No.1788/2026 dated 23.01.2026, 2nd respondent in Roc. No.21238/2021 dated 23.12.2021, 2nd respondent in Roc. No.14780 /CN /2024 dated 05.09.2024 and 2nd respondent in Roc. No.3102 /2022 dated 13.04.2022 respectively, and quash the same as illegal, against principles of natural justice, settled position of law and consequently direct the respondents to refund the entire amount recovered from the petitioner’s salary.

2.The petitioners joined in the Judicial Department and thereafter, they were promoted to various levels. One additional increment was inadvertently sanctioned to the petitioners while fixing the pay upon their promotion. Pursuant to an objection raised by the Internal Audit, the impugned proceedings were issued by the respondent concerned in the respective writ petitions regarding recovery of the excess amount and re-fixation of pay. Hence, the petitioners have filed the writ petitions.

3. Unjust gain of public money is impermissible under law. In such circumstances, the Authorities Competent are empowered to rectify the errors in fixation of pay and grant the correct pay as applicable. Thus, the revised pay fixation granted by the respondents in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders shall continue.

4.However, the respondents are unable to establish that there was a misrepresentation on the part of the employee during fixation of pay. It is an error committed by the Establishment for which the petitioners cannot be penalised after a lapse of many years. Recovery of excess salary at this length of time would result in extreme hardship to the employee.

5. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also enumerated the legal principles in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, 12015 4 SCC 334 and held as hereunder:

“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 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 the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) 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.

(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 iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.”

6. In view of the facts and circumstances, the revision of pay effected pursuant to the Audit Objection is confirmed, but the recovery of excess pay alone is set aside. The excess amount recovered on account of the impugned order is directed to be re-paid to the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.