17.08.2026 rpan/11 WPCT 156 of 2026 Union of India & Others – Versus – Shiv Shankar Jha Mr. Ashis Kuamr Mukherjee, Mr. Manabendra Nath Bandyopadhyay …. for the Petitioners. Mr. P. K. Bhowmick … for the Respondent. Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. The present writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India and its functionaries challenging an order dated 11th December, 2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA), being OA No.350/00169/2025 setting aside the order of recovery dated 14th June, 2024 and directing the petitioners herein to refund back the already recovered amount to the respondent within a period of two months. The said OA was preferred by the respondent herein challenging inter alia an order dated 14th June, 2024 issued by the petitioner no.3 herein intimating inter alia that as per objection report, submitted by Internal Audit team, who carried out the audit inspection in February, 2024, wrong emoluments were being drawn by the respondent since 2006 due to erroneous fixation of pay on 1st January, 2006 and that as such there had been an excess payment totalling an amount of Rs.1,85,910/- for the period from January, 2006 to January, 2024 and that the said amount is due for recovery and that the pay has been revised to Rs. 42200/- from Rs. 43500/-. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order was passed by the learned Tribunal without scrutinizing the audit objection report. The said objection would clearly reveal that the respondent had drawn a scale of pay to which he was not entitled to and that the judgments upon which reliance was placed do not deter the authorities from recovering the wrongful/excess payment made to the government servant. The respondent, as such, cannot reap the benefits of such wrongful fixation of pay. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon an office memorandum dated 2nd March, 2026, issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions. He argues that excess payment of public money is neither of the officers nor of the recipients. The State exchequer cannot be burdened with an amount illegally drawn by an employee on the rudiments of erroneous fixation of pay. Such arguments, as advanced, were glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same. 2 Mr. Bhowmick, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/original applicant, however, denies and disputes the contention of the petitioners and submits that the respondent cannot be made to suffer for any error attributable to the petitioners. The respondent was holding a Group – ‘C’ post and his service tenure came to an end on 30th April, 2026. About 18 years after fixation of pay, the petitioners took steps for recovery in a most illegal and arbitrary manner without any explanation as regards such belated steps towards recovery. In the said conspectus, the learned Tribunal rightly observed that such recovery would be iniquitous. He further argues that the issue, as regards recovery of alleged overpayment is no longer res integra. The petitioners cannot make recovery from employees belonging to Class – III and Class – IV employees when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, moreso when the respondent had no role to play as regards such alleged erroneous pay fixation. Neither had he suppressed any material fact nor had he practised any fraud. He further submits that the recovery which was started on and from the month of May, 2024 continued till January, 2025 recovering approximately an amount of Rs.90,000/-. 3 Subsequent thereto, a further amount of Rs.1,92,856/- was recovered from the gratuity of the respondent, as would be explicit from the memo dated 21st July, 2026. Such recovery is ex-facie more than the alleged overdrawn amount quantified to be Rs. 1,85,910/-. A copy of the said memo, as placed, be kept on record. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, an Internal audit team carried out an audit inspection in the month of February, 2024 wherefrom it was allegedly found that the respondent had enjoyed the benefits of an erroneous fixation of pay on and from 1st January, 2006. No explanation is forthcoming as to why such alleged wrong fixation could not be deciphered within a reasonable period of time. Such recovery process was initiated without issuance of any show-cause notice and that too after a period of about eighteen years. The petitioners have also miserably failed to establish that such alleged excess amount was drawn by the respondent by suppressing material facts. On the contrary the petitioner no.3 himself vide memo dated 05th July, 2024 forwarded the respondent’s representation regarding waiver of recovery to the 4 Department of Expenditure (Ministry of Finance) to explore the possibility for waiver. The learned Tribunal upon considering the factual issues arrived at specific findings and exercised discretion in favour of the respondent detailing the reasons. We do not find any error in the order impugned warranting interference in the present writ petition. The writ petition, being WPCT 156 of 2026 is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 5