WP No. 37639 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR WP No. 37639 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.42122 of 2025 T.V.Saravanan S/o.Venugopal, No.15/35, Lala Thoppu Street, Tirukkoyilur, Villupuram- 605 757. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General High Court Madras- 104. 2. The Principal District Munsif Tirukoilur, Kallakurichi. 3. The Subordinate Judge Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi. ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in office order No.37 of 2023 dated 19.04.2023 passed by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,41,073/- from petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to remit back the recovered amount to petitioner. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Ajay Kanna for Mr.S.Tamilselvan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Thangavel https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 37639 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Office order No.37 of 2023 dated 19.04.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,41,073/- from the petitioner and consequently, direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner worked as Junior Bailiff under the 3rd respondent. He was appointed in government service as Night Watchman on 15.02.1996 and promoted to the post of Office Assistant with one increment. He joined duty as Office Assistant on 24.12.1999 and subsequently, pay fixation was effected from 01.01.2000. The 1st respondent, after a long time, issued Audit Report stating that there is an inadmissible sanction of one increment on promotion from the post of Night Watchman to the post of Office Assistant as on 01.01.2000 and directed the 2nd respondent to recover the excess claim of pay and allowances from 01.01.2000 to 31.03.2023 to the tune of Rs.1,41,073/-. Thus, the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 came to be passed. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 37639 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 6 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 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 37639 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 6 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 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 is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 37639 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 6 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 20-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vsi To 1. The Registrar General High Court Madras- 104. 2. The Principal District Munsif Tirukoilur, Kallakurichi. 3. The Subordinate Judge Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 37639 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. vsi WP No. 37639 of 2025 20-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis