Recovery of excess salary payments from Group 'C' and 'D' employees, especially after retirement and in the absence of misrepresentation, is legally impermissible.

Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or SL. No. Date directions and Registrar’s COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS order with Signatures

2. Petitioner retired from the post of Senior Assistant from Public Works Department (National Highway Division) on 31.03.2023. After his retirement, an order was passed on 23.06.2023 whereby sum of Rs. 9,28,040/- was directed to be recovered from his retiral dues. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged said recovery order.

3. Learned State Counsel refers to para 4 of the counter affidavit, filed by Mr. Deepak Gupta, Executive Engineer of the concerned division. Stand taken by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is that at the time of his promotion as Work Munshi, petitioner’s pay was wrongly fixed as Rs. 2650-65-3500-20-4000 instead of Rs. 2610-60-315-65-3540.

4. It is further stated that petitioner joined on the promoted post of Work Munshi only on 01.03.1997, but due to mistake, he was given salary for the promoted post w.e.f. 23.12.1996.

5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after implementation of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 also, petitioner’s pay was fixed at a higher level due to which excess amount was paid to him, which is liable to be recovered.

6. Learned State Counsel, however, concedes that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or submission of incorrect information by the petitioner for getting salary at a higher pay scale released in his favour.

7. Law is well settled that recovery of excess payment made to Group ‘D’ and Group ‘C’ employees is not permissible. Similarly, no order for recovery of excess payment made to government servant can be passed after their retirement.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (SS) No. 335 of 2023. He submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has been dealt with by this Court in that judgment.

9. Learned State Counsel submits that he has no objection if writ petition is decided in terms of judgment passed in WPSS No. 335 of 2023.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 18.09.2025 rendered in WPSS No. 335 of 2023.