WP No. 49620 of 2025 Page No.1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR W.P.NO.49620 OF 2025 AND WMP NOS.55466 AND 55467 OF 2025 S.Balachandran S/o.Suruttian Veppillaipatti Village, Kethu Reddy Patti Post, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District. … Petitioner Vs. 1.The Registrar General High Court of Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104. 2.The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Court V) Department Fort. Saint George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Principal District Judge Dharmapuri. 4.The Principal Accountant General (A and E) AG’s Office (Audit) Complex, Anna Salai, Roast Revor Garden, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 49620 of 2025 Page No.2 of 7 5.The District Treasury Officer Dharmapuri. 6.District Munsif Court Dharmapuri. … Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 18.06.2023 vide ROC No.359/2023 passed by the sixth respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to continue to pay at the existing fixation of pay and not to recover the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel For Respondents 1, 3 & 6: Mr.K.Elango For Respondents 2 & 5 : Dr.R.Gouri For Respondent – 4 : Mr.P.Manorajan O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the Proceedings in ROC No.359/2023 dated 18.06.2023 passed by sixth respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,58,636/- from petitioner and direct the respondents to continue to pay at the existing fixation of pay and not to recover the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner. 2.The petitioner was initially appointed as Night Watchman on 01.06.2006 and promoted as Office Assistant on 18.02.2008. Later, he was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 49620 of 2025 Page No.3 of 7 promoted as Record Clerk on 29.01.2014. He was temporarily promoted as Examiner on 17.11.2015. Writ petitioner was informed through impugned Proceedings in Roc No.359/2023 dated 18.06.2023, that pursuant to the report of internal audit wing of the High Court, the grant of sanction of one increment on the post of Night Watchman on 01.06.2006 was held inadmissible to the petitioner. Based on the audit objection, the pay was revised accordingly, and excess pay and allowances paid to the petitioner was sought to be recovered in 50 monthly instalments. 3.Unjust gain of public money is impermissible under law. In such circumstances, the Authorities Competent are empowered to rectify the errors in fixation of pay and grant the correct pay as applicable. Thus, the revised pay fixation granted by the respondents in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders shall continue. 4.However, the respondents are unable to establish that there was a misrepresentation on the part of the employee during fixation of pay. It is an error committed by the Establishment for which the petitioner cannot be penalised after a lapse of many years. Recovery of excess salary at this length of time would result in extreme hardship to the employee. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 49620 of 2025 Page No.4 of 7 5.In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also enumerated the legal principles in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih1 and held as hereunder: “18.It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii)Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 49620 of 2025 Page No.5 of 7 rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. 6.In view of the facts and circumstances, the revision of pay effected pursuant to the Audit Objection is confirmed, but the recovery of excess pay alone is set aside. The excess amount, if any, recovered on account of the impugned order is directed to be re-paid to the petitioner within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned Proceedings passed in Roc.No.359/2023 dated 18.06.2023 by the sixth respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone. 7.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. [S.M.S., J.] [N.S., J.] 02.07.2026 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes / No TK https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 49620 of 2025 Page No.6 of 7 To 1.The Registrar General High Court of Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104. 2.The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Court V) Department Fort. Saint George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Principal District Judge Dharmapuri. 4.The Principal Accountant General (A and E) AG’s Office (Audit) Complex, Anna Salai, Roast Revor Garden, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. 5.The District Treasury Officer Dharmapuri. 6.District Munsif Court Dharmapuri. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 49620 of 2025 Page No.7 of 7 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. TK WP NO.49620 OF 2025 02.07.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis