WP No. 29163 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. 29163 of 2025 & WMP.Nos.33047 & 33048 of 2025 P.Selvakumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras. 2. The Principal Secretary of Government Home (Court V) Secretariat Buildings, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 3. The Principal District Judge, Erode. 4. The Principal Accountant General (A & E) AG’s Office (Audit) Complex, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned Letter No 6720 / 2023 dated 07.08.2023 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to refund a sum of Rs.1,54,313/- recovered from the petitioner and for consequential orders. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Harshavarthan for Mr.Sharath Chandran For Respondent(s): Mrs.P.Selvi for R1 & R3 R2 – No appearance Mr. T. Ravikumar for R4 __________ Page1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 29163 of 2025 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside Letter No.6720/2023 dated 07.08.2023 passed by 3rd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,54,313/- from petitioner and direct the third respondent to refund the recovered amount to petitioner and pass suitable orders. 2. The petitioner joined as Copyist on 27.03.2003. He retired from service on attaining superannuation on 28.02.2023 as Protocol Officer . The petitioner was sanctioned one promotional increment for his promotion from the post of Assistant to the post of Bench Clerk Grade – III. The writ petitioner was informed through Audit Objection that pursuant to the findings of internal audit wing of the High Court, the grant of sanction of one increment on the transfer from the post of Assistant to the post of Bench Clerk Grade – III was held inadmissible, as the Bench Clerk Grade III shall be in the cadre of Assistants / First Division Assistants UDCS and as per G.O.Ms. No. 329, Home (Courts - V) Department, dated 23.04.2009, the post of Bench Clerk Grade III is to be created by redeployment from the post of Assistants which are having identical scale of pay with Grade pay. Based on the audit objection, the pay was revised accordingly, and excess pay and allowances paid to the petitioner was sought to be recovered from his pensionary benefits. Since a writ by the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Association challenging the __________ Page2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 29163 of 2025 recovery order was pending at that time, the petitioner was asked to deposit the excess payment in fixed deposit. The petitioner deposited the same which was duly acknowledged by the 3rd respondent via a communication dated 07.08.2023 to the District Treasury, Erode, which is the impugned order that is sought to be quashed. 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 1 2015 4 SCC 334 __________ Page3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 29163 of 2025 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 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 __________ Page4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 29163 of 2025 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 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 Letter No.6720/2023 dated 07.08.2023 passed by 3rd respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are 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 Registrar General, High Court of Madras. 2. The Principal Secretary of Government Home (Court V) Secretariat Buildings, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. __________ Page5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 29163 of 2025 3. The Principal District Judge, Erode. 4. The Principal Accountant General (A & E) AG’s Office (Audit) Complex, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. __________ Page6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 29163 of 2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. TSG WP No. 29163 of 2025 & WMP.Nos.33047 & 33048 of 2025 09-07-2026 __________ Page7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis