2026:MHC:2772 WP No. 540 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. 540 of 2026 R.Sathishkumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Principal District Judge Salem Salem District. 2. The District Munsif The District Munsif Court, Omalur, Salem District. ..Respondent(s) Calling for the concerned records from the 2nd Respondent quash the proceedings in D.No.157 of 2025 dated 26.06.2025 issued by the 2nd Respondent as illegal arbitrary contrary to law, in violation of principles of Natural Justice and biased and pass For Petitioner(s): Mr. B.Vasudevan For Respondent(s): Mrs.A. Karthika 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 D No.157/2025 dated 26.06.2025 passed by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,55,502/- from petitioner and pass suitable orders. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2772 WP No. 540 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 6 2. The petitioner joined duty as Night Watchman/Masalchi on 11.03.2013 and later promoted to various levels and is now working as Bench Clerk Grade III. While he was working as Masalchi, he was transferred to the post of Office Assistant, for which he was sanctioned one promotional increment. The writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceeding in D No.157/2025 dated 26.06.2025, that pursuant to the finding of internal audit wing of the High Court, the grant of sanction of one promotional increment on the transfer from the post of Masalchi to the post of Office Assistant was held inadmissible, as per the Government letter No. 17507/85-4/P&AR(Est-F) Department dated 24.07.1985, which is addressed to the Registrar General, Madras High Court, where it has been stated that as in the Fourth Pay Commission Government fixed identical scale of pay for all the posts under Class I to IV in Tamil Nadu Basic Services, (i.e. Rs.450-10-570-720) on making appointment from one post to another post in the same class i,e, I to IV, no promotion orders is to be issued; instead, such appointment is to be made only by Transfer of Service. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2772 WP No. 540 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 6 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 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 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2772 WP No. 540 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 6 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. 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 D No.157/2025 dated 26.06.2025 passed by 2nd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2772 WP No. 540 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 6 respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition, if any 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 Principal District Judge Salem Salem District. 2. The District Munsif The District Munsif Court, Omalur, Salem District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2772 WP No. 540 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. GD WP No. 540 of 2026 09-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis