W.P.No.29636 of 2026 __________ p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.P.No.29636 of 2026 AND W.M.P.No.32608 of 2026 S.Ravi … Petitioner -vs- 1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras, High Court Building, Chennai- 600 104. 2. The Principal Secretary Home – V (Courts) Fort St.George, Chennai. 3. The Principal District Judge, District and Sessions Court Villupuram. 4. The Special District Judge (To deal with MCOP Cases) Villupuram District. 5. The Subordinate Judge Gingee. 6. The District Treasuries Office Villupuram. … Respondents https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29636 of 2026 __________ p. 2 Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 4th respondent vide proceedings in D.No.498/26 dated 12.06.2026, quash the same insofar as it directs recovery of a sum of Rs.2,21,607/- alleged to have been paid in excess and insists upon the petitioner furnishing an undertaking as a condition for settlement of retirement benefits, and consequently direct the respondents to release and disburse all the petitioners retirement benefits, including pension, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), commutation of pension, leave encashment, without effecting any recovery or insisting upon any undertaking together with all consequential monetary and service benefits. For Petitioner: Mr.J.Nagarajan For Respondents: Mr.M.T.Arunan for Respondents 1,3,4 and 5 ***** O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The Writ Petition has been filed against the order of the 4th respondent vide proceedings in D.No.498/26 dated 12.06.2026, quash the same insofar as it directs recovery of a sum of Rs.2,21,607/- alleged to have been paid in excess to the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29636 of 2026 __________ p. 3 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Copyist on 02.08.1996 and retired as Bench Clerk Grade I on 25.01.2024. After a long time, the internal audit wing of the High Court had found inadmissible promotional increment to the petitioner because of the wrong fixation of salary and ordered to recover a sum of Rs.2,21,607 /- being excess pay and allowance paid to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the 4th respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29636 of 2026 __________ p. 4 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 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 12015 4 SCC 334 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29636 of 2026 __________ p. 5 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 is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 29-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KST https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29636 of 2026 __________ p. 6 To: 1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras, High Court Building, Chennai- 600 104. 2. The Principal Secretary Home – V (Courts) Fort St.George, Chennai. 3. The Principal District Judge, District and Sessions Court Villupuram. 4. The Special District Judge (To deal with MCOP Cases) Villupuram District. 5. The Subordinate Judge Gingee. 6. The District Treasuries Office Villupuram. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.29636 of 2026 __________ p. 7 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J. KST W.P.No.29636 of 2026 29-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis