WP No. 20283 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. 20283 of 2026 V.Vinoth Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Principal District Judge The principal District Court, Dharmapuri 2. The Principal District Administrative officer The Principal District court, Dharmapuri ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the recovery notice dated 05.05.2026 issued by the second respondent and quash the same in light of the order of the Division Bench in W.P. (MD) No 7494 of 2021 dated 18.12.2025. For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Nagarajan For Respondent(s): Mr. B. Vijay ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the impugned recovery notice dated 05.05.2026 passed by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.16,198/- from petitioner and pass such suitable orders. WP No. 20283 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 2. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Bailiff on compassionate grounds and joined duty on 06.10.2007, later promoted to various levels and is now working as Head Clerk. He was promoted as Head Clerk from the post of Record Keeper, for which the pay level is identical as per the TNJMS Rules. The writ petitioner was informed through impugned show cause notice in D No. 2767/2026 dated 05.05.2026, that pursuant to the findings of internal audit wing of the High Court, sanction of one promotional increment to the writ petitioner in the post of Head Clerk was held inadmissible as per Government Letter No. E-6441401/PC/2024-1, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 19.01.2024, as the employee promoted to higher post carrying identical/same pay level in the pay matrix is not entitled for one increment under the Tamil Nadu Revised Pay Rules, 2017. Hence, based on the audit objection, the pay was sought to be revised accordingly, and excess pay and allowances paid to the petitioner was sought to be recovered from his salary, for which the petitioner was granted time to submit his explanation. 3. Normally no Writ would lie against the show cause notice and the noticee on receipt is expected to submit their explanation in response to the notice defending his/her case. However, a writ would lie where the competent authority has issued the notice without jurisdiction. WP No. 20283 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an order of recovery was passed insisting the petitioner to file the writ petition. 5. 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, in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders. 6. Unless, 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. 7. 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 12015 4 SCC 334 WP No. 20283 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 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. (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. WP No. 20283 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 8. This Court is of the view that if any recovery order is passed pursuant to the re-fixation of pay, such recovery alone is liable to be set aside. If no recovery is made, the recovery shall not be made for the excess payment. However, the re-fixation of pay shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and the Government Orders in force. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. If any recovery has been made pursuant to the audit objection and show cause notice, the said amount is directed to be refunded to the petitioner, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed. (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 principal District Judge The principal District Court, Dharmapuri 2. The principal District Administrative officer The Principal District court, Dharmapuri WP No. 20283 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. GD WP No. 20283 of 2026 09-07-2026