Madras High Court
WP/39230/2026 of K.Nazer Mohammed Vs The Registrar General on 30 September 2026
WP No. 39230 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP No. 39230 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012149852026}
K.Nazer Mohammed
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras,
Chennai - 104.
2. The Principal District Judge, Salem
District Court, Salem.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Roc. No. 4036 /2022 dated 25.02.2022, quash the same and Consequently direct the respondents to refund / restore any amount already recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned proceedings.
For Petitioner(s):
MR.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondent(s):
MR.M.KEMPRAJ
Standing Counsel
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) This writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in Roc. No. 4036/2022 dated
WP No. 39230 of 2026
25.02.2022, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund / restore any amount already recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned proceedings.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Xerox Machine Operator on 17.08.1990. After promoted to various levels, the petitioner was thereafter granted Selection Grade and Special Grade and his pay was periodically fixed and revised by the competent authorities in accordance with the various Government Orders and Pay Commission recommendations. Pursuant to an Internal Audit, the impugned proceedings was issued by the second respondent regarding recovery of the excess amount and re-fixation of his pay. Hence, the petitioner has filed the 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 petitioners cannot be penalised after a lapse of many years. Recovery of excess salary at this
WP No. 39230 of 2026
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.
(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.” 12015 4 SCC 334
WP No. 39230 of 2026
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. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI To
1. The Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Madras, Chennai - 104.
2. The Principal District Judge, Salem District Court, Salem.
WP No. 39230 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. SLI WP No. 39230 of 2026 30-09-2026