2026:MHC:2706 WP.No.20863 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 6 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. 20863 of 2026 C.Rajendiran ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104 2. The Principal District Judge Ariyalur District, Pincode 621 704 ..Respondent(s) Calling for the records made in R. No 1583/ 2025 dated 24.11.2025 by the second Respondent and quash the same and further Forbearing the respondents form revising the pay of the petitioner, reducing, and recovering on the basis of unlawful audit objection. For Petitioner(s): B.Lenin For Respondent(s): Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the impugned proceeding in R No.1583/2025 dated 24.11.2025 passed by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,13,080/- from petitioner and direct the respondents to forbear from revising the pay of the petitioner, reducing and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2706 WP.No.20863 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 recovering on the basis of the audit objection and to pass suitable orders. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Typist on 02.05.2007 and promoted to various designations subsequently. The petitioner was sanctioned Justice Shetty Commission increment as per G.O. Ms. No. 1011 Home(Cts-V) dated 07.12.2010. The writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceeding in R.No.1583/2025 dated 24.11.2025, that pursuant to the internal audit wing of the High Court, the grant of sanction of Justice Shetty Commission increment was held inadmissible to the petitioner, as the petitioner was appointed only on 02.05.2007, but the benefit of the increment was granted to the individuals who were appointed between 01.04.2003 and 31.12.2005. 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 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2706 WP.No.20863 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 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). (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 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2706 WP.No.20863 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 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, 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 proceeding in R. No.1583/2025 dated 24.11.2025 passed by 2nd respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2706 WP.No.20863 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 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/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To 1. The Registrar General Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104 2. The Principal District Judge Ariyalur District, Pincode 621 704 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2706 WP.No.20863 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. GD WP No. 20863 of 2026 09-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis