2026:MHC:2703 WP.No.15818 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. 15818 of 2026 S. Ramachandran S/o. R. Srinivasan, No.3/122 Gandhi Nagar, Krishnagiri -635 001 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras, High Court Campus, Chennai- 600 104 2. The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri District Court, Krishnagiri 3. The Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office, Krishnagiri ..Respondent(s) Calling for records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd Respondent in R.O.C. No.2761 of 2026 dated 18.03.2026 to recover Rs.5,96,966/- as excess pay and allowance due to wrong fixation of pay and quash the same as illegal and direct the 2nd Respondent to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner within a reasonable time as may be fixed by the Honble Court For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.E.Ravichandran For Respondent(s): Mr. M.Fakkir Mohideen For R1 And R2 No appearance for R3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2703 WP.No.15818 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The Writ Petition has been filed calling for the records of the 2 nd respondent in impugned proceedings in ROC No. 2761/2026 dated 18.03.2026, quash the same, consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner and pass further orders as the court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as temporary Copyist on 18.04.2000. Later he was promoted and served in various designations. The petitioner is now serving as Bench Clerk Grade – I with effect from 31.03.2021. The petitioner was informed through impugned order dated 18.03.2026, that pursuant to the internal audit wing of the High Court, the scale of pay was found to be excessive. Based on the audit objection, the pay was revised accordingly and excess salary paid to the petitioner was sought to be recovered from the writ petitioner’s 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2703 WP.No.15818 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 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 Group D service). (ii)Recovery from the retired employees, or 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2703 WP.No.15818 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 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 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 made in ROC No. 2761/2026 dated 18.03.2026,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:2703 WP.No.15818 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 High Court of Madras, High Court Campus, Chennai- 600 104 2. The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri District Court, Krishnagiri 3. The Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office, Krishnagiri https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2703 WP.No.15818 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. GD WP No. 15818 of 2026 09-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis