2026:MHC:2856 WP.No.49762 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. 49762 of 2025 K.Sudha Bench Clerk, Grade-I, Principal District Court, Villupuram. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Principal District Judge Villupuram. 2. The Assistant Registrar (audit) Internal Audit Wing, Madras High Court, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Calling for the records of the 1st respondent in respect of the proceedings in D.No.8596 of 2025 dated 24.11.2025 and quash the same and thereby forebear the respondents from recovering the alleged over payment of Rs.9,03,442/- from the salary of the petitioner. For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Suresh For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Durai Eswar ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the order in D.No.8596/2025 dated 24.11.2025 passed by 1st respondent for recovery of excess pay and forbear the respondents from recovering the alleged amount https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2856 WP.No.49762 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 of Rs. 9,03,442/- and pass further orders as the court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Copyist on 13.07.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner underwent promotions and is now working as Bench Clerk, Grade – I in the Principal District Court, Villupuram. Writ Petitioner was informed through impugned proceeding in D.No.8596/2025, dated 24.11.2025, that pursuant to the finding of internal audit wing of the High Court, there was a sanction inadmissible selection grade increment from the post of Junior Assistant from 13.07.2008 and inadmissible sanction of one increment from the post of Assistant to Bench Clerk, Grade – III on 04.10.2010 resulting in excess paid pay and allowances for the period from 13.07.2008 to 31.10.2005. 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 her 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:2856 WP.No.49762 of 2025 __________ 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 the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2856 WP.No.49762 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 6 (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, 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 D.No.8596/2025 dated 24.11.2025 passed by 1st respondent passed is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess pay alone. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2856 WP.No.49762 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 Principal District Judge Villupuram. 2. The Assistant Registrar (audit) Internal Audit Wing, Madras High Court, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2856 WP.No.49762 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. GD WP No. 49762 of 2025 09-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis