AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)
Challenging the recovery orders passed by the third respondent, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petitions seeking a consequential direction to refund the amounts already recovered from them.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are C-Group employees. Initially, they were appointed to the post of Reader and subsequently, promoted as Junior Assistant/Bench Clerk/Sheristadar in the respective Subordinate Courts. During the pendency of their service, pursuant to an audit objection, it was found that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of the increment granted to them. Consequently, the respondents sought to refix their pay and recover the excess amount paid to them. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners in obtaining the benefit. The increment was granted by the authorities on their own accord and the petitioners had received the same in the normal course of their service. Therefore, the amount already paid to the petitioners cannot be recovered from them. It is further submitted that a similar issue had already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.15202 of 2026 and batch of cases dated 15.06.2026, wherein the benefit of protection against recovery was extended to similarly placed employees. Hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be interfered with insofar as they relate to the recovery of the excess amount already paid to the petitioners. The learned counsel would, however, submit that the petitioners are not seeking any interference with the refixation of their pay and that the challenge in the present writ petitions is confined to the recovery of the excess amount already paid to them and consequential refund thereof.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
A Division Bench of this Court, while considering a similar issue in W.P.(MD) Nos.15202 of 2026 and batch of cases, dated 15.06.2026, has considered the question as to whether the excess amount paid to the employees, without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part, can be recovered. The Division Bench, after considering the relevant facts and the applicable principles, held as follows:
“9.In the present case, the issue relates to the grant of an increment based on the statutory provisions prevailing at the relevant point of time. It appears that an additional increment was granted under the applicable rules and was subsequently treated as excess in view of the implementation of the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. Thus, the alleged excess payment arose solely on account of an error committed by the employer in fixation of pay and not due to any misrepresentation or fault on the part of the petitioners.
10.Admittedly, the petitioners belong to Group 'C' and Group 'D' service categories in the Judicial Department, as the case may be. It is well settled, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, that recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) is impermissible in law. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The respondents have already re-fixed the pay of the petitioners, and the petitioners have no grievance insofar as such re-fixation is concerned. Their challenge is confined only to the recovery ordered pursuant thereto.”
The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the present case also, there is no allegation that the petitioners had made any misrepresentation or played any fraud for obtaining the benefit of the increment. The benefit was extended by the competent authorities and was received by the petitioners in the normal course of their service. Therefore, the excess amount already paid to the petitioners cannot be recovered from them.
At the same time, we find no reason to interfere with the refixation of pay undertaken by the respondents pursuant to the audit objection. Accordingly, the refixation of pay is not interfered with. However, insofar as the recovery of the excess amount already paid to the petitioners is concerned, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the present writ petitions are allowed insofar as they relate to the recovery of the excess amount already paid to the petitioners. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any, already recovered from the petitioners pursuant to the impugned proceedings, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court is not inclined to refix of pay effected by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.