2026:MHC:2898 WP No. 29790 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR WP No. 29790 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.33410 & 33415 of 2025 V.Mani S/o. Vadivel, No.2/49, Nadur B. Thirunjipatti, Bommidi, Papprieddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District -635 301 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General High Court Of Madras, Chennai-104 2. The Principal Secretary to Government Home (court V) Department, Fort. Saint George, Chennai-9 3. The Principal District Judge Dharmapuri 4. The Principal Accountant General (A and E) AG’s Office (Audit) Complex, Anna Salai, Roast Revor Garden, Teynampet, Chennai -600 018 5. The District Treasury Officer Dharmapuri 6. The Sub-ordinate Judge Harur ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records of the 6th Respondent in connection with the proceedings https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2898 WP No. 29790 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 of ROC No.616/2022 dated 02.12.2022 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue to pay at the existing fixation of pay and not to recovering the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner. For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Sakthivel For Respondent(s): Ms.B.Poongkhulalia for R1, R3 & R6, Dr.R.Gouri, Government Counsel for R2 & R5, Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Standing Counsel for R4 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the 6th respondent dated 02.12.2022 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue to pay at the existing fixation of pay and not to recovering the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Senior Bailiff in District Munif Court Denkanikottai on 31.05.1993. He was transferred to various places. While he was working in Sub-Court, Harur, he received an Official Memorandum dated 09.06.2022 from the 6th respondent stating that his pay was wrongly fixed and excess amount was paid and the same has to be recovered. The petitioner gave his reply on 04.07.2022. However, the impugned order dated 02.012.2023 was passed, ordering for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,62,511/- alleging that excess salary has been paid for the period from 01.06.1993 to 30.11.2022. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2898 WP No. 29790 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 6 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 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, 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2898 WP No. 29790 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 6 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 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 is confirmed, but the recovery of excess pay alone is set aside. The excess https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2898 WP No. 29790 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 6 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 is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 15-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VSI To 1. The Registrar General High Court Of Madras, Chennai-104 2. The Principal Secretary To Government Home (court V) Department, Fort. Saint George, Chennai-9 3. The Principal District Judge Dharmapuri 4. The Principal Accountant General (a And E) Ag -s Office (audit) Complex, Anna Salai, Roast Revor Garden, Teynampet, Chennai -600 018 5. The District Treasury Officer Dharmapuri 6. The Sub-ordinate Judge Harur. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2898 WP No. 29790 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. vsi WP No. 29790 of 2025 15-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis