2026:MHC:2873 WP.No.43912 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. 43912 of 2025 A.Viswanathan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai-104 2. Principal District Court Thiruvallur District, Combined Court Building, Tiruvallur-602 001 3. Chief Judicial Magistrate Thiruvallur District, Combined Court Building, Tiruvallur-602 001 ..Respondent(s) Calling for the records of the 3rd respondent vide order 24.8.2021 in D.NO.1378/2021 and quash the same and to consequently direct the 3rd respondent to refund a sum of Rs.1,88,253/-(One Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Two hundred and fifty three only) within the time period. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.V.Seshachari For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Giridharan 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.1378/2021 dated 24.08.2021 passed by 3rd respondent for recovery of excess pay and consequentially direct the respondents to remit back the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2873 WP.No.43912 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 recovered amount and pass further orders as the court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Senior Bailiff in the year 2001 and was promoted to the cadre of Head Clerk on 01.10.2015. The writ petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 in D.No.1378/2021, stating that, as per the Internal Audit Wing, High Court, Madras, the petitioner had received excess payment due to incorrect sanction of 5% Personal Pay, since it was to be sanctioned only to those who were in service as on 01.09.1998. Hence, the individual is not eligible for the sanctioning of the 5% personal pay and is directed to make the payment immediately. Subsequent to this, a sum of Rs.1,88,253/- has been deducted from the petitioner's 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. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2873 WP.No.43912 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 6 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. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2873 WP.No.43912 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 6 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 in order D.No. 1378/2021 dated 24.08.2021 passed by 3rd respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess pay alone. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2873 WP.No.43912 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 6 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai-104 2. Principal District Court Thiruvallur District, Combined Court Building, Tiruvallur-602 001 3. Chief Judicial Magistrate Thiruvallur District, Combined Court Building, Tiruvallur-602 001 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2873 WP.No.43912 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. GD WP No. 43912 of 2025 09-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis