2026:MHC:2810 WP No. 43593 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. 43593 of 2025 C.Jesudian ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar High Court of Madras, Chennai-104 2. The Princial Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur. ..Respondent(s) To call for the records of Progs. No.73 of 2023 dated 24/02/2023 passed by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,20,615/- from petitioner and quash the same consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to remit back the recovered amount to the petitioner and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ajay Kanna for Mr.S.Tamil Selvan For Respondent(s): Mr.M.T.Arunan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The Writ Petition has been filed calling for the records of Proceedings No. 73/2023 passed by 2nd respondent dated 24.02.2023, for recovery of excess pay and allowances and quash the same and to direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount and pass further orders as the court deems fit and proper. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2810 WP No. 43593 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 2. The petitioner was appointed as Masalchi on 26.12.1995 and subsequently underwent promotions and is now serving as Junior Assistant under the 2nd respondent. During his service, the petitioner got one Special compensatory Allowance on promotion to the post of Office Assistant on 01.09.1999. Later, the 1st Respondent issued Audit para 14 stating that, “G.O.Ms.No.239(Finance) dated 22.07.2013 grants Special Compensatory Allowance to Office Assistants/Basic Servants only with effect from 01.04.2013 but in the instant case, the pay of the individual was revised as per (iii) above granting Rs.50/- as Special Compensatory Allowance with effect from 01.09.1999. The individual had already been sanctioned Rs.30/- as Special Compensatory Allowance with effect from 01.09.1999 as per G.O.Ms.No.426, Fin, dated: 24.09.1999, and Sanction of two different Special Compensatory Allowance at Rs. 30/- and Rs.50/- with effect from 01.09.1999 is not in order. Based on which, the 2nd respondent issued Order in Proceeding No. 73 of 2023 dated 24.02.2023, to recover the excess pay and allowance from the petitioner. 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:2810 WP No. 43593 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 6 4. However, the respondents are unable to establish that there was a misrepresentation or the petitioner had given an undertaking at the time of revision of scale of pay. In the absence of any one of these aspects, recovery of excess pay and allowances from the writ petitioner 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:2810 WP No. 43593 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 and allowances 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 Office order Proceeding No. 73/2023 dated 24.02.2023 passed by 2nd respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess pay and allowances alone. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2810 WP No. 43593 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 High Court of Madras, Chennai-104 2. The Princial Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2810 WP No. 43593 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. GD WP No. 43593 of 2025 09-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis