WP No. 35723 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. 35723 of 2025 & WMP.No.39982 of 2025 J. Vijayalakshmi ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras. 3. 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 14.10.2024 in his proceedings Dis. No 9656 / 24 and quash the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Madhavan For Respondent(s): R1 – No appearance Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar for R2 and R3 __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35723 of 2025 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the proceedings in Dis.No.9656/2024 dated 14.10.2024 passed by 3rd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,36,042/- from petitioner and pass further order as the Court deems fit and proper. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Steno Typist on 24.04.1998, and is now working as Steno Typist Grade I/Executive Assistant in Principal District Court, Vellore. The petitioner was sanctioned one advance increment for passing Account Test. Writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceedings in Dis.No.9656/2024 dated 14.10.2024, that the grant of one advance increment was held inadmissible to the petitioner, as the Government vide Letter No.34776/AV4/2000-7/Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated, 24.05.2001, had ordered withdrawal of the sanction of the Advance Increment to the employees who had passed the Account Test but opted to continue their service in the level of Stenographers with effect from 01.08.1992. 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. 35723 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. 35723 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 order made in Dis.No.9656/2024 dated 14.10.2024 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. 35723 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 Principal District Judge, District Court, Vellore, Vellore District. __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 35723 of 2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. TSG WP No. 35723 of 2025 & WMP.No.39982 of 2025 09-07-2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis