WP No. 18375 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR WP No. 18375 of 2025 G.Saravanan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General High Court, Madras 600 104 2. The Additional Registrar General (audit) Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai 3. The Principal District Judge Theni 4. The Sub Judge Subordinate Court, Bodinayakkannur, Theni District ..Respondent(s) Calling for the proceedings of 2nd respondent Audit Report as forwarded by the 3rd respondent in proceeding D. No 6018 / 2024 dated 12.11.2024 quash the same and pass For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Sivaji For Respondent(s): Ms.N.K.Kanthimathi Standing Counsel https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18375 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 4 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Order of re-fixation of pay was passed by the Sub-Judge, Bodinayakkannur, Theni District vide Proceeding dated 02.04.2025. However, the said order has not been challenged by the writ petitioner. Order under challenge is passed in Proceeding, dated 12.11.2024 relating to submission of rectification report. 2. The fact remains that the writ petitioner is holding the post of Assistant. His pay was erroneously refixed. Thus, Internal Audit Wing of the High Court has raised an audit objection. Based on the audit objection, the competent authority revised the scale of pay as applicable under the Pay Rules and Government Order in force. 3. The said re-fixation has not been challenged by the writ petitioner. In any event, it is an error, which was identified by the Audit Wing of the High Court, and such error in fixation of pay can be rectified at any point of time. However, if any excess salary has already been paid in pursuance to the earlier fixation, the said recovery shall not be made. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that no recovery order has been passed in the present case. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18375 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 4 5. That being the factum, the refixation of pay done in accordance with the Pay Rules and the Government Orders in force cannot be considered as infirm. The rectification report as sought for in the impugned order would not provide any cause of action in filing the writ petition. 6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 09-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To 1. The Registrar General High Court, Madras 600 104 2. The Additional Registrar General (audit) Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court, Madurai 3. The Principal District Judge Theni 4. The Sub Judge Subordinate Court, Bodinayakkannur, Theni District https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18375 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 4 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. GD WP No. 18375 of 2025 09-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis