WP/39584/2026 of B.Sivakumar Vs The Registrar General on 1 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the Dis. Order No. 607/2026 dated 17.04.2026 passed by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs. 3,24,688/- from petitioner and direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to petitioner and to pass suitable orders.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Examiner on 05.07.1993 and subsequently retired from service on 30.06.2026. Writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceedings in Dis. Order No. 607/2026 dated 17.04.2026, that pursuant to the finding of internal audit wing of the High Court, the pay has been incorrectly fixed at 16,870/- (12010 + 4800/-) instead of 16270/- (12070 + 4200). Based on the audit objection, the pay was revised accordingly, and excess pay and allowances paid to the petitioner was sought to be recovered from him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had deposited the alleged excess money paid to him to the tune of Rs.3,24,688/- in the treasury by e-challan dated 07.05.2026. However, petitioner came to understand that Courts have held that excess salary paid inadvertently cannot be recovered. Thus, he filed the present writ petition.

4. No doubt, petitioner has deposited the recovery amount on the pretext that only on depositing the said amount, he will get his terminal and pensionary benefits. However, he further states that the erroneous pay fixation was by the establishment, and there was no misrepresentation on his part. Thus, the authorities have to verify correctness of the re-fixation made to the petitioner.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 12015 4 SCC 334

(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.

8. 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 Dis. Order No. 607/2026 dated 17.04.2026 passed by 2nd respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition, if any is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To

1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai- 600104.

2. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thandarampattu, Thiruvannamalai District.

3. The Additional District Judge, Additional District Court, Thriuvannamalai District.

4. The High Court Audit Recovery High Court of Madras Chennai-104.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. GD WP No. 39584 of 2026 01-10-2026