Excess Salary Paid Due To Wrong Pay Fixation Can't Be Recovered From Class-III & IV Employees Despite Undertaking: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that recovery of excess payment from Class-III and Class-IV employees is impermissible in law even if such employees have submitted an undertaking or consent letter agreeing to the recovery. The Court observed that the petitioner's contention that he had submitted the consent letter and deposited the amount under pressure and threat that his retiral dues would not be released could not be overlooked.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru was hearing a writ petition filed by a retired Sub-Inspector seeking refund of ₹6,26,104 recovered by the respondents towards excess salary allegedly paid due to wrong fixation of pay. The petitioner contended that the excess payment was neither on account of any fraud, misrepresentation nor suppression of facts on his part. He further submitted that he deposited the amount after being informed that his retiral dues would be withheld if he failed to do so. The State opposed the petition, contending that the recovery had been effected pursuant to the consent furnished by the petitioner and was therefore valid.
The Court noted that it was undisputed that the petitioner belonged to a Class-III post and that the excess payment had resulted solely from wrong fixation of pay. It further found that it was not the case of the respondents that the excess payment had been made on account of any fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts by the petitioner.
“… submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has submitted the consent letter and subsequently deposited the amount under the pressure and threat that he may not be paid retiral dues, cannot be overlooked,” the Court remarked.
Referring to various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334], the Court observed that recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service remains impermissible even where an undertaking has been furnished by the employee.
“… even if undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III or Class-IV service, recovery of excess amount paid from him/her is impermissible.”
The Court held that the petitioner cannot be compelled to return the amount that had been paid by the respondents on their own without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner.
Accordingly, it quashed the recovery and directed the respondents to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within three months.
Case Title: Tulsi Ram Bhardwaj v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPS No. 4318 of 2026]