2026:MHC:2788 WP No. 38631 of 2025 __________ 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. 38631 of 2025 E.Padma ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General High Court Of Madras, Chennai-600 104. 2. Principal District Munsif Judge, Chieyyar, Thiruvannamalai District. 3. High Court Audit Recovery, High Court Of Madras, Chennai-600 104. ..Respondent(s) Calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order dated 13.07.2023 made in Dis.No.453 of 2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and consequentially directing the respondents to reimburse the amount paid by the petitioner on 21.07.2023 based on the impugned order dated 13.07.2023 made in Dis. No.453 of 2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Sathyamoorthy For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Giridharan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2788 WP No. 38631 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the Office order in Dis.No.453/2023 dated 13.07.2023 passed by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and consequentially direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount and pass further orders as the court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed in the post of Junior Assistant in the year 2009 and retired from Service on 31/05/2023, as Junior Assistant (Group-C). Writ petitioner was served with a impugned order dated 13/07/2023 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,631/-. Therafter, the petitioner paid the amount as mentioned in the Impugned Order in the name of the Principal District Munsif, Cheyyar. 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:2788 WP No. 38631 of 2025 __________ 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:2788 WP No. 38631 of 2025 __________ 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 order made in Dis.No.453/2023 dated 13.07.2023 passed by 2nd respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess pay alone. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2788 WP No. 38631 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 6 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition if any, stands 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, Chennai-600 104. 2. Principal District Munsif Judge, Chieyyar, Thiruvannamalai District. 3. High Court Audit Recovery, High Court Of Madras, Chennai-600 104. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2788 WP No. 38631 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. GD WP No. 38631 of 2025 09-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis