Recovery From Class-III Employees Impermissible: Bombay High Court Quashes ₹40 Lakh Recovery Notice Against Retired Pune University's Data Entry Operator
The Court noted that post-retirement overpayment claims due to employer mistake cannot be recovered from Class-III and IV staff under Supreme Court guidelines.
Justice G. S. Kulkarni, Justice Aarti Sathe, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that recovery of alleged excess monetary benefits wrongly paid to a Class-III employee due to an administrative pay fixation mistake is impermissible in law, particularly when initiated after the employee’s superannuation. The Bench observed that recovery orders in such situations cause undue hardship to lower-tier public servants and breach constitutional mandates of equity and livelihood protection.
The Court held that the case was squarely covered by the Supreme Court’s landmark precedents in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih & Ors. 2015(4) SCC 334 and Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2009(3) SCC 475, which bar recoveries of erroneous excess payments from Class-III/Group C employees and retired personnel.
The Court, accordingly, set aside a recovery demand dated April 17, 2023 issued by Savitribai Phule Pune University against a retired Data Entry Operator. The Court further mandated the university to release all withheld post-retiral dues, including gratuity, earned leave encashment, provident fund interest, and arrears under the Assured Career Progression Scheme benefits from June 2017, and 7th Pay Commission, within three months.
A Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed, “…We come to this conclusion considering that the Petitioner in the present case was also a Class III employee, and insofar as the contention of Respondent No. 1-University is concerned, that the Petitioner had given an undertaking during the application of the 6th Pay Commission that he would refund the amount to the Respondent No. 1-University in the event there were any discrepancies or mistakes while calculating the said amount, the same would not come in the way of the Petitioner’s case, inasmuch as the decision in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) categorically lays down the law that insofar as recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service is concerned, the same is impermissible in law, and even if it has been mistakenly been made by the employees. Considering the clear position of law as set out in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), we do not see as to how the facts of the present case can be differentiated and the guidelines as laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) would not be applicable to the present case”.
Advocate Vaibhav Kulkarni appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Rajendra Anbhule appeared for the respondent.
The brief facts of the case indicate that the petitioner was appointed as a Data Entry Operator with Savitribai Phule Pune University in June 1993 and subsequently permanentized in September 1994. Over his career spanning nearly three decades, his pay scales were updated pursuant to various state government notifications and pay commission recommendations. He superannuated from service on December 31, 2022.
Post-retirement, the university issued a letter dated April 17, 2023, alleging that his pay under the 6th Pay Commission had been erroneously fixed higher than his entitlement, resulting in an excess salary disbursement of ₹39,94,343/-, which it sought to recover while withholding his retiral dues.
Procedurally, the petitioner submitted representations to the university arguing that he had never requested any specific pay scale and that his salary was fixed solely by the employer. Receiving no official response, he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. During interim proceedings, the High Court directed the university to deposit the petitioner’s entire retiral dues in court pending final disposal.
The Court rejected the university’s reliance on an undertaking signed by the employee during pay revision, distinguishing it from cases involving Class-I officers and emphasized that the excess disbursement was strictly due to the university's administrative oversight, making post-retirement recovery arbitrary, iniquitous, and legally untenable.
“…we are of the opinion that it would be illegal and arbitrary to recover the amount of Rs.39,94,343/- from the Petitioner’s retiral benefits, more so when the Petitioner is a Class III employee. In view thereof, we are of the view that this Writ Petition deserves to succeed, and the illegal recovery made by Respondent No. 1-University deserves to be set aside”, the Bench said.
The Court also ordered the university to implement the 7th Pay Commission for the petitioner with effect from June 1, 2016, based on the pay scale of ₹9300–34800 with Grade Pay of ₹4300, setting a three-month deadline for full compliance.
Cause Title: Shrinivas Ganesh Kulkarni v. Savitribai Phule Pune University & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:37589-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Vaibhav Kulkarni, Prathamesh Deshpande, Disha Rathod, Advocates.
Respondent: Rajendra Anbhule, Vaibhavi Shelar, P. P. Kakade (Addl. G.P.), Priyanka B. Chavan (AGP), Advocates.