WP NO.19252 OF 2026 Page No.1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR W.P.NO.19252 OF 2026 AND WMP NOS.20516 AND 20519 OF 2026 A.Pavayee … Petitioner Vs. 1.The Registrar General High Court of Madras Chennai – 600 104. 2.The Presiding Officer Labour Court Salem. … Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records with respect of the impugned proceedings of the second respondent issued in the form of Notice dated 13.11.2025 and subsequent proceedings in Roc. No.2457/2025 dated 20.11.2025 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondents : Ms.V.Sasi for Ms.B.Poongkhuzali https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP NO.19252 OF 2026 Page No.2 of 6 O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the impugned notice dated 13.11.2025 and subsequent proceedings in Roc. No.2457/2025 dated 20.11.2025 passed by second respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,59,654/- from petitioner. 2.The petitioner was initially appointed as Steno Typist Grade – III on 20.11.2006 and promoted as Assistant and subsequently, promoted as Stenographer Grade – I on 01.06.2015. Writ petitioner was informed through impugned Notice dated 13.11.2025 and the subsequent Proceedings in Roc. No.2457/2025 dated 20.11.2025 that pursuant to the report of internal audit wing of the High Court, the increment granted on 31.05.2012 for passing Account Test was held inadmissible to the petitioner. Based on the audit objection, the pay was revised accordingly, and excess pay and allowances paid to the petitioner was sought to be recovered in 24 monthly instalments. 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 WP NO.19252 OF 2026 Page No.3 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 WP NO.19252 OF 2026 Page No.4 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, if any, recovered on account of the impugned order is directed to be re-paid to the petitioner within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned order made in the form of Notice dated 13.11.2025 and subsequent Proceedings in Roc. No.2457/2025 dated 20.11.2025 passed by second respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP NO.19252 OF 2026 Page No.5 of 6 7.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. [S.M.S., J.] [N.S., J.] 17.07.2026 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes / No TK To 1.The Registrar General High Court of Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104. 2.The Presiding Officer Labour Court Salem. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP NO.19252 OF 2026 Page No.6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. TK WP NO.19252 OF 2026 17.07.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis