W.P.No.30968 of 2025 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.P.No.30968 of 2025 AND W.M.P.Nos.34683 and 34685 of 2025 R.Bharathi … Petitioner -vs- 1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras, High Court Building, Chennai- 600 104. 2. The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Courts V) Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 3. The Principal District Judge Dharmapuri. 4. The Principal Accountant General (A and E) AG’s Office (Audit) Complex, Anna Salai Roast Revor Garden, Teynampet Chennai 600 018. 5. The District Treasury Officer Dharmapuri. … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the third respondent in connection with the proceedings ROC No.6675/2022 dated 27.08.2022 and quash the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30968 of 2025 __________ same and consequently direct the respondent to continue to pay at the existing fixation of pay and not to recover the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner. For Petitioner: Mr.A.Sakthivel For Respondents: Ms.N.K.Kanthimathi – for R1 and R3 Ms.Vardhini Karthik – for R4 NA – for RR 2 and 5 O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The Writ Petition has been filed to set aside the order of the 3rd respondent dated 27.08.2022 in respect of recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.91,774/- for the period from 0.11.2021 to 31.10.2021 and Rs.10,359/- for the period 18.02.2008 to 31.07.2022 from the petitioner. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Night Watchman in the year 2007 and was subsequently, promoted as Junior Baliff on 17.11.2015. .After a long time, the internal audit wing of the High Court had found inadmissible promotional increment to the petitioner because of the wrong fixation of salary and ordered to recover a sum of Rs.1,02,133/- being excess pay and allowance paid to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30968 of 2025 __________ 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 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 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30968 of 2025 __________ 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.” 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 order is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30968 of 2025 __________ 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 21-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KST To: 1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras, High Court Building, Chennai- 600 104. 2. The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Courts V) Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 3. The Principal District Judge Dharmapuri. 4. The Principal Accountant General (A and E) AG’s Office (Audit) Complex, Anna Salai Roast Revor Garden, Teynampet Chennai 600 018. 5. The District Treasury Officer Dharmapuri. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30968 of 2025 __________ S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J. KST W.P.No.30968 of 2025 21-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis