2026:MHC:2640 WP No. 25673 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR WP No. 25673 of 2026 N.Rajeshwari W/o. Lawrence, 16/12 Xavier Street, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu 605 602 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai. 2. The Principal District Judge Villupuram district 3. The Principal District Munsif Tindivanam ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to call for the records relating to officer Order No. 8/2023 dated 20.01.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent quash the same in sofar as it directs recovery of Rs. 1,59,432 from the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents not to effect any recovery from the petitioners salary . For Petitioner(s): Ms.C.Alagu Bhavani For Respondent(s): Mr.Ebenezer Paul, Standing Counsel https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2640 WP No. 25673 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the 2nd respondent Office Order No.8/2023 dated 20.01.2023 and quash the same insofar as it directs recovery of Rs.1,59,432/- from the petitioner and consequently, direct the respondents, not to effect any recovery from the petitioner’s salary. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Examiner on 12.07.2007 and promoted to various posts. She is presently working as Bench Clerk Grade-III at Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam. On subsequent promotions, her pay was revised. While so, the 2nd respondent issued Office Order No.8/2023 dated 20.01.2023, directing recovery of a sum of Rs.1,59,432/-, allegedly paid in excess during the period from 12.07.2007 to 31.12.2022.The petitioner submitted representations. However, the impugned proceedings dated 20.01.2023 came to be passed, directing recovery of Rs.1,59,432/- paid in excess for the period between 12.07.2007 to 31.12.2022. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2640 WP No. 25673 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 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). (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. 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2640 WP No. 25673 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 (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. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 08-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VSI https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2640 WP No. 25673 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 To 1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai. 2.The Principal District Judge, Villupuram District. 3. The Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2640 WP No. 25673 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. vsi WP No. 25673 of 2026 08-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis