WP No. 35717 of 2025 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. 35717 of 2025 & WMP.No.39972 of 2025 N.Jayanthi ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras. 3. The Family Court Judge, Vellore, Vellore District. 4. The Principal District Judge, District Court, Vellore, Vellore District. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent dated 21.11.2022 in his proceedings Dis. No 1067/ 22 and quash the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Madhavan For Respondent(s): R1 – No appearance Mr.Arun Anbumani for RR2 to 4 __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35717 of 2025 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside proceedings in Dis.No.1067/2022 dated 21.11.2022 passed by 3rd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,16,368/- from petitioner and pass further orders as the Court deems fit and proper. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Steno Typist on 11.09.2001, and later promoted to the post of Steno-Typist Grade I on 02.06.2015. The petitioner was sanctioned one advance increment for having passed the account test. Writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceedings in Dis.No.1067/2022 dated 21.11.2022, that the advance increment for having passed the account test for Subordinate Officers Part-I on 01.06.2009, based on the Government Letter No.7358/FR.IV/2008, dated 21.01.2008 and as per the proceedings of the District Munsif, Katpadi in Dis.No.381/2011, dated 23.03.2011 was reverted, since the petitioner has not opted for further promotion posts through transfer to the Ministerial Post. Based on this, the pay was revised accordingly, and excess pay and allowances paid to the petitioner was sought to be recovered from her salary. 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 __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35717 of 2025 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 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). 1 2015 4 SCC 334 __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35717 of 2025 (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. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances, the revision of pay effected pursuant to the impugned order 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 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings in Dis.No.1067/2022 dated 21.11.2022 passed by 3rd respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone. __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35717 of 2025 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 09-07-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG To 1. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras. 3. The Family Court Judge, Vellore, Vellore District. 4. The Principal District Judge, District Court, Vellore, Vellore District. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35717 of 2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. TSG WP No. 35717 of 2025 & WMP.No.39972 of 2025 09-07-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis