WP No. 34358 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR W.P.NO.34358 OF 2025 AND WMP NO.38524 OF 2025 S.Shalini Computer Operator Principal District Court, Dharmapuri, Now on deputation at Sub – Court, Dharmapuri. … Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Home (Courts) Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Registrar General High Court of Madras Chennai – 600 104. 3.The Principal District Judge The Principal District 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 of the third respondent in its R.O.C.No.5084/2022 dated 28.11.2022 which is communicated to the petitioner by the third respondent herein to quash the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 34358 of 2025 same and consequently direct the respondents herein to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of her appointment together with all monetary and attendant benefits including maternity benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan for M/s.Global and Legal For Respondent-1 : Dr.R.Gouri Government Counsel For Respondents 2&3 : Ms.N.K.Kanthimathi 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 order in R.O.C.No.5084/2022 dated 28.11.2022 passed by the third respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,23,589/- from petitioner and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of her appointment together with all monetary and attendant benefits including maternity benefits. 2.The petitioner was initially selected and appointed as Computer Operator, on 01.09.2015. She was made as an approved probationer on 10.01.2018. Writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceedings in R.O.C.No.5084/2022 dated 28.11.2022, that pursuant to the report of internal audit wing of the High Court, the sanction of periodical annual increment for the year 07/2017 till 2019 was held inadmissible to the petitioner. Based on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 34358 of 2025 the audit objection, the pay was revised accordingly, and excess pay and allowances paid to the petitioner was sought to be recovered in 36 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. 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 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 34358 of 2025 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 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 34358 of 2025 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 respondents are directed to verify the correctness of re-fixation of pay admissible to the post as per the Pay Rules and the Government Orders in force. 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 order passed in R.O.C.No.5084/2022 dated 28.11.2022 by the third respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone. 7.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.M.S., J.] [N.S., J.] 08.07.2026 (2/2) Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes / No TK https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 34358 of 2025 To 1.The Principal Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Home (Courts) Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Registrar General High Court of Madras Chennai – 600 104. 3.The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court Dharmapuri. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 34358 of 2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. TK W.P.NO.34358 OF 2025 08.07.2026 (2/2) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis