2026:MHC:3025 WP No. 42597 of 2025 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR WP No. 42597 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.47633 & 47635 of 2025 V.Thangadurai S/o.Vaithiyananthan, No.17/6,Thottipattai, Valavanur, Villupuram-605 108 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai-104 2. The Principal District Judge Kallakurichi ..Respondent(s) Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the proceedings in Office order No.188/2025 dated 16.10.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,44,494/- from petitioner and quash the same and consequent direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to the petitioner. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Ajay Kanna for Mr.S.Tamilselvan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Giridharan for R1 & R2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3025 WP No. 42597 of 2025 __________ Page2 of 6 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Office order No.188/2025 dated 16.10.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,44,494/- from petitioner and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner worked as Translator under the 2nd respondent and on deputation he worked at the Sub Court, Ulundurpet, and was promoted from the post of Assistant to Bench Clerk Grade III and joined duty as Bench Clerk Grade III on 14.12.2013. He was sanctioned promotional increment @3% with effect from 01.04.2014. His pay has been fixed at 11730+2800 G.P. in the scale of pay of PB1-5200-20200+2800 GP. The 1st respondent, after a long time, issued Audit Report and directed the 2nd respondent that there was inadmissible sanction of one increment on transfer from the post of Assistant to the post of Bench Clerk Grade III. Hence, the excess pay and allowances paid on pay fixation for the period from 01.04.2014 to 30.09.2025 amounting to Rs.2,44494/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner and thus, the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 came to be passed. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Unjust gain of public money is impermissible under law. In such https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3025 WP No. 42597 of 2025 __________ Page3 of 6 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, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3025 WP No. 42597 of 2025 __________ Page4 of 6 (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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3025 WP No. 42597 of 2025 __________ Page5 of 6 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.) 20-07-2026 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 District Judge Kallakurichi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:3025 WP No. 42597 of 2025 __________ Page6 of 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. vsi WP No. 42597 of 2025 20-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis