2026:MHC:2700 WP.No.15186 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 7 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. 15186 of 2026 AND WP NO. 15193 OF 2026 WP No. 15186 of 2026 M.Govindan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras, Chennai. 2. The Principal District Judge Krishnagiri-635 001. 3. The presiding Officer, Labour Court Hosur,Krishnagiri- 635 109. 4. The Sub Treasury Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri- 635 001. ..Respondent(s) WP No. 15193 of 2026 P.Arasu ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras, Chennai. 2. The Principal District Judge Krishnagiri-635 001. 3. The Sub Judge Denkanikottai-635 107 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2700 WP.No.15186 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 7 4. The Sub Treasury Denkanikottai,-635 107 ..Respondent(s) WP No. 15186 of 2026 Calling for the records with respect of the impugned proceedings ROC No.301/2023 issued by of the 3rd Respondent dated 19.4.2023 and quash the same and Consequently direct the Respondents repay the recovered amount and continue to pay at the existing fixation of pay to the petitioner and pass WP No. 15193 of 2026 Calling for the records with respect of the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent ROC No.289/2023 dated 17.8.2023 and consequence order in ROC No.621/2026 dated 6.2.2026 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and Consequently direct the Respondents repay the recovered amount and continue to pay at the existing fixation of pay to the petitioner and pass WP No. 15186 of 2026 For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Arumugavel For Respondent(s): Mrs. Karthika Ashok for R1-3 Mr. S. Yashwanth Additional Government Pleader for R4 WP No. 15193 of 2026 For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Arumugavel For Respondent(s): Mrs. Karthika Ashok for R1-3 No appearance for R4 Common Order (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ petitions on hand has been instituted to set aside the impugned proceedings in R.O.C No.301/2023 dated 19.04.2023 and ROC No. 289/2023 dated 17.08.2023 and the consequent order in ROC No. 621/2026 passed by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2700 WP.No.15186 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 7 3rd respondent in the respective writ petitions for recovery of excess pay and allowance from petitioners and direct the respondents to continue the pay at existing fixation of pay and to remit back the recovered amount to petitioners. 2. The petitioners were initially appointed as Night Watchman/Masalchi and later promoted as Office Assistant. The petitioners were sanctioned one promotional increment for their transfer from Night Watchman/Masalchi to Office Assistant. The writ petitioners were informed through impugned proceedings in R.O.C No.301/2023 dated 19.04.2023 and ROC No. 289/2023 dated 17.08.2023 and the consequent order in ROC No. 621/2026 passed by 3rd respondent in the respective writ petitions, that pursuant to the internal audit wing of the High Court, the grant of sanction of one increment was held inadmissible to the petitioners as Class IV Employees may be appointed to Class III posts only by way of transfer of service and not by promotion, even though the scale of pay for the above posts are identical. Based on the audit objection, the pay was revised accordingly, and excess pay and allowances paid to the petitioners were 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 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:2700 WP.No.15186 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 7 4. However, the respondents are unable to establish that there were a misrepresentation on the part of the employees during fixation of pay. It is an error committed by the Establishment for which the petitioners 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 employees. 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 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2700 WP.No.15186 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 7 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 recovered on account of the impugned orders is directed to be re-paid to the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings in R.O.C No.301/2023 dated 19.04.2023 and ROC No. 621/2026 passed by 3rd respondent in the respective writ petitions are set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone, whereas the ROC No. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2700 WP.No.15186 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 7 289/2023 dated 17.08.2023 refixing the pay of the writ petitioner/Mr.P. Arasu is confirmed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition 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 Registrar General High Court of Madras, Chennai. 2. The Principal District Judge Krishnagiri-635 001. 3. The presiding Officer, Labour Court Hosur,Krishnagiri- 635 109. 4. The Sub Treasury Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri- 635 001 5. The Sub Judge Denkanikottai-635 107 6. The Sub Treasury Denkanikottai,-635 107 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2700 WP.No.15186 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 7 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR J. GD WP No. 15186 of 2026 AND WP NO. 15193 OF 2026 09-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis