WP/35567/2026 of RAJIREVATHI Vs The Registrar General on 7 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the Office order No. 62/2022 dated 31.10.2022 passed by 3rd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,26,076/- from petitioner and direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to petitioner and to pass suitable orders.

2. The petitioner is now working as Central Nazir under the 4th respondent. Writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceedings in Office order No. 62/2022 dated 31.10.2022, that pursuant to the finding of internal audit wing of the High Court, the sanction of one increment on promotion to the post of Bench Clerk Grade-III from the post of Assistant was held inadmissible to the petitioner, since the post of Bench Clerk Grade III is to be created by redeployment from the post of Assistants which are having identical scale of pay. 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 her salary.

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

WP No. 35567 of 2026

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 12015 4 SCC 334

WP No. 35567 of 2026

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 pursuant to the Audit Objection 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 a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned order made in Office order No. 62/2022, dated 31.10.2022 passed

WP No. 35567 of 2026

by 3rd respondent 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, if any is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 07-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To

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

2. The Principal District Judge Villupuram District court, Villupuram

3. The Principal Subordinate judge Kallakurichi Sub court, Kallakurichi

4. The Subordinate Judge Thirukoilur sub Court, Kallakurichi district

WP No. 35567 of 2026

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. GD WP No. 35567 of 2026 07-09-2026