Allahabad High Court
PRABHAKAR PANDITversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
Recovery of excess salary from a retired employee is impermissible, and the orders effecting such recovery are quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Prosecution Officer, challenged the recovery of Rs. 68,619 from his retirement dues, which the respondents claimed was excess pay due to an erroneous increment. After his retirement, the petitioner gave written consent to the deduction under pressure, and the representation seeking reversal was rejected. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih, the petitioner argued that recovery from a retired employee is impermissible. The High Court held that the case falls within the category of retired employees for whom recovery is barred unless the employee caused the overpayment. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders dated 11‑02‑2016, 08‑03‑2011 and 24‑08‑2011, directing the respondents to refund the amount with interest.
Issues considered
- Whether excess salary paid due to a wrong fixation of pay scale can be recovered from a retired employee
- Whether the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rafiq Masih (2015) apply to the present case
- Whether the representation rejecting the petitioner's claim is legally valid
Subjects
- excess salary recovery
- retired employee
- pay scale fixation
- Rafiq Masih principle
- quashing order
- interest payable
- government orders
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 26020 of 2016
Prabhakar Pandit
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anoop Kumar Pandey, Radhey Krishna
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
(Sl.No.75)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Radhey Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Dileep Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the State.
2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of
the order dated 11.02.20216 whereby the representation of the petitioner
was rejected and the orders dated 08.03.2011 and 24.08.2011, which were
passed after the retirement of the petitioner for recovery of the excess
amount paid to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay scale.
3. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was
appointed as Assistant Prosecution Officer in the office of Senior
Prosecution Officer, District Allahabad on 02.08.1976 and thereafter he
retired on 28.02.2011 from the post of Senior Prosecution Officer, Deoria.
After his retirement, before releasing the retiral dues to the petitioner, the
respondents have stated that the petitioner was wrongly paid the excess
amount due to grant of one additional increment in terms of the
Government Orders dated 02.12.2000, 20.10.2001 and 13.08.2002 and
taken a written consent from the petitioner for deduction of the said
excess amount paid to him due to said increment granted to the petitioner
erroneously. Under the compelling circumstances as his retiral dues were
at stake, the petitioner had to give the written consent and pursuant
thereof an amount of Rs. 68,619/- was recovered from the retiral dues of
the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had earlier approached this
WRIA No. 26020 of 2016
2
Court by filing the Writ Petition No. 29369 of 2013, which was disposed
of vide order dated 11.12.2015 with a direction to the respondents to take
a fresh decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner.
However, vide impugned order dated 11.2.2016, the said representation
was rejected by the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Apex
Court in Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 4
SCC 334 , submits that after his retirement no amount could be recovered
from him, which is claimed to be an excess amount paid to the petitioner
due to wrong fixation of pay scale or the increments granted to him
during his service period. The relevant portion of the relevant directions
of the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) are 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, 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 be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far
outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is
fully covered in clause-II, of the aforesaid directions.
6. In such view of the matter, the respondents could not have recovered
WRIA No. 26020 of 2016
3
the aforesaid excess amount, which was paid to the petitioner due to
wrong fixation of pay scale during his service period unless it has been
categorically shown that the petitioner himself was responsible for such
wrong fixation of the pay scale in any manner.
7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State do not dispute
the proposition of law as settled in the judgment of Apex Court in Rafiq
Masih (supra).
8. In such view of the matter, the instant petition is allowed.
9. The orders dated 11.02.2016 and 24.08.2011 as well as order dated
08.03.2011 is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed
to pay the recovered amount of Rs. 68,619/- to the petitioner within a
period of eight weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of
this order along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
May 7, 2026
Ashish Pd.
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH PRASAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…