SHRIDHAR BABURAO GAMBHIRE v. THE CHIEF EX OFFICER Z P OSMANABAD AND ORS
Prohibition of Recovery of Excess Salary Payments from Retired Employees in the Absence of Fraud or Misrepresentation.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:6872-DB
Decision Date: 17-02-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; Service Law - Recovery of Excess Payment; Pension Rules; Principle of Equity and Natural Justice; Government Resolutions (dated 14.11.1979 and 11.08.1999)
- Facts: The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1971 and eventually became a trained graduate primary teacher in 1984. Throughout his career, his pay scale was revised and fixed by the authorities based on his qualifications and seniority. He retired from service on 30.11.2005. Shortly before his retirement, the Account Officer raised an objection stating that since the petitioner was appointed after 30.09.1970 and did not possess a B.Ed. qualification, his pay scale should be re-fixed. Consequently, following his retirement, the respondents issued an order on 08.06.2007 directing the recovery of approximately Rs. 2,80,000/- as alleged excess payments from his pensionary benefits. The petitioner challenged this recovery, asserting there was no fraud or misrepresentation on his part.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner initially filed Writ Petition No. 3450/2006, which the High Court allowed by remanding the matter for fresh enquiry. After the respondents maintained their stance via the impugned order dated 08.06.2007, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
- Issue: Whether the respondents can legally recover alleged excess salary payments from a retired employee when such payments were made due to an erroneous pay fixation by the employer without any fraud or misrepresentation by the employee?
- Holding: No, the recovery of excess payments from a retired employee is impermissible in law; however, the employer retains the right to prospectively re-fix the pension in accordance with statutory rules.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on the landmark Supreme Court judgments in "State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)" and "Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India". It held that recovery is prohibited from retired employees or those due to retire within one year, especially when the excess payment was made for over five years before the recovery order. The Court noted that the petitioner was not guilty of fraud or misrepresentation; the error was committed by the respondents. While recovery of past dues is "iniquitous and harsh", the Court clarified that pension is a statutory right. Therefore, while the recovery was quashed, the respondents were granted liberty to re-fix the pension prospectively to align it with correct statutory provisions, ensuring no past amounts are clawed back.
🔒 For Members Only