Tripura High Court Rules Excess Salary Recovery Illegal for Retired Group-C Employee, Quashes Rs.7.01 Lakh Recovery Order
By Our Correspondent
Agartala, July 13, 2026
Reaffirming the legal protection available to retired government employees, the High Court of Tripura has held that recovery of excess payments is impermissible from retired employees and Group-C or Group-D employees where the overpayment resulted from an employer's mistake and not from any misrepresentation by the employee. The Court observed that the alleged excess payment in the present case dated back to 2015, well beyond the five-year period laid down by the Supreme Court, and found that the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the alleged erroneous fixation of pay. On these grounds, the High Court quashed the recovery proceedings and directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's claim for financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme before re-fixing his pension and retiral benefits.
The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S Datta Purkayastha on July 2, 2026, in WP(C) No. 177 of 2026, filed by Sri Hiralal Das, a retired employee of Fatikroy Class XII School, against the State of Tripura and others. The petitioner had challenged a recovery order seeking to recover Rs.7,01,354 from his retiral benefits on the ground of alleged excess payment arising out of an incorrect pay fixation.
Sri Hiralal Das, a resident of Fatikroy in North Tripura, joined government service as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on June 10, 1998. After completing ten years of service, he was granted the benefit of CAS-I in 2008. He was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on January 20, 2014, and subsequently received ACP-II with effect from June 10, 2015. He retired from service on January 31, 2026. However, after his retirement, the authorities concluded that since he had already been promoted in 2014, he was not entitled to ACP-II and issued a letter dated February 19, 2026, directing him to submit a "No Objection" certificate for recovery of Rs.7,01,354. The petitioner contended that instead of ACP-II, he was entitled to MACP-III upon completion of 25 years of service without any further promotion and challenged both the recovery order and the denial of the MACP benefit.
The respondents in the case included the State of Tripura represented by the Special Secretary, School Education Department, the Director of Secondary Education (Grant-in-Aid), Fatikroy Class XII School, its Headmaster, the Head of Office and Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO), and the Accountant General (A&E), Tripura.
The petitioner was represented by Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate, assisted by Ms. Ishpa Chakma, Advocate. The State was represented by Mr. Pradyumna Gautam, Senior Government Advocate, while the Accountant General was represented by Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Agniva Chakrabarti, Advocate.
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that Hiralal Das, being a Group-C employee, had never secured the higher pay by fraud or misrepresentation and therefore recovery of the alleged excess payment was legally barred. It was also submitted that while the authorities had withdrawn the ACP-II benefit, they failed to extend the MACP-III benefit, thereby reducing his last basic pay from Rs.53,800 to Rs.52,200. On behalf of the State, Senior Government Advocate Mr. Pradyumna Gautam contended that ACP-II had rightly been withdrawn because the petitioner had already earned a promotion in 2014. Senior Advocate Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya informed the Court that although a Pension Payment Order (PPO) had initially been issued, it was later withdrawn and the Accountant General had requested the School Education Department to submit a revised pension proposal after proper pay fixation, but no response had been received.
While deciding the matter, Justice S Datta Purkayastha relied upon the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in State of Punjab & Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits recovery of excess payments from retired employees and Group-C and Group-D employees where the overpayment occurred due to administrative mistakes and not because of any fault on the part of the employee. Holding that the petitioner's case squarely fell within the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court quashed the recovery letter dated February 19, 2026, and restrained the respondents from making any recovery from him on account of the alleged wrong pay fixation.
The Court further directed the respondents to undertake a fresh fixation of the petitioner's last basic pay after granting him an opportunity of hearing and by considering his claim for MACP-III within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. It also ordered the authorities to release his pension, gratuity, leave salary, commutation of pension and all consequential arrears within two weeks thereafter. Additionally, the Court directed that the petitioner's General Provident Fund (GPF) dues be released within two weeks along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date the amount became due until actual payment, if the amount had not already been paid.
With these directions, the writ petition and all pending applications were disposed of.
more news...