WP/39168/2026 of A.Asia Begam Vs The Registrar General on 25 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) These writ petitions have been filed to call for the records pertaining to the show cause notice in D.Nos.634 of 2026, 7101, 2188, 2189 & 2190 of 2026 dated 31.08.2026, 25.08.2026, 28.08.2026, 28.08.2026 & 28.08.2026 respectively issued by the second respondent and quash the same.

2. The petitioner in WP No.39168 of 2026 was appointed as an Additional Copyist on 28.04.1997. After promoted to various levels, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Clerk (Category II) from the post of Translator. Due to an incorrect fixation of pay under the applicable rules, the petitioner was granted an excess amount of Rs.2,44,695/-, which was paid from 20.07.2018 to 31.08.2026. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent regarding recovery of the excess amount and re-fixation of his pay. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

2.1. The petitioner in WP No.39192 of 2026 was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 19.02.1992. After promoted to various levels, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sheristadar from the post of Grade I Bench Clerk. Due to an incorrect fixation of pay under the applicable rules, the petitioner was granted an excess amount of Rs.2,30,145/-, which was paid from 01.10.2017 to 31.07.2026. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent regarding recovery of the excess amount and re- fixation of his pay. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

2.2. The petitioner in WP No.39172 of 2026 was appointed as a Reader on 31.01.1995. After promoted to various levels, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sheristadar from the post of Grade I Bench Clerk. Due to an incorrect fixation of pay under the applicable rules, the petitioner was granted an excess amount of Rs.75,774/-, which was paid from 01.10.2024 to 31.08.2026. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent regarding recovery of the excess amount and re-fixation of his pay. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

2.3. The petitioner in WP No.39174 of 2026 was appointed as an Office Assistant on 01.08.2014. After promoted to various levels, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant from the post of Senior Bailiff. Due to an incorrect fixation of pay under the applicable rules, the petitioner was granted an excess amount of Rs.56,548/-, which was paid from 01.07.2022 to 31.08.2026. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent regarding recovery of the excess amount and re-fixation of his pay. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

2.4. The petitioner in WP No.39193 of 2026 was appointed as an Office Assistant on 01.08.2014. After promoted to various levels, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sheristadar from the post of Grade I Bench Clerk. Due to an incorrect fixation of pay under the applicable rules, the petitioner was granted an excess amount of Rs.57,188/-, which was paid from 01.07.2022 to 31.08.2026. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner 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 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.

(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 12015 4 SCC 334

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 orders is directed to be re-paid to the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand partly allowed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 25-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI To

1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai-600 104.

2. The Judge, Family Court, Tiruppur.

3. The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court, Tiruppur.

4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Tiruppur.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. SLI WP Nos. 39168, 39192, 39172, 39174 & 39193 of 2026 25-09-2026