WP/35241/2026 of A.M.PARTHIBAN Vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL on 3 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the impugned show cause notice in Dis.No. 7041/2026/CN dated 23.07.2026 passed by 3rd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,80,470/- from petitioner and to pass suitable orders.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Masalchi/Night watchman and subsequently, was promoted as Junior Bailiff in the Principal District Court, Vellore. Writ petitioner was informed through impugned show cause notice in Dis.No. 7041/2026/CN dated 23.07.2026, that pursuant to the finding of Internal Audit Report, pay was erroneously fixed with effect from 01.01.2006 at Rs.5,510 + Grade Pay Rs.1,300 by adopting the pre-revised basic pay of Rs.2,960 instead of the correct pre- revised basic pay of Rs.2,900. As per G.O.Ms.No.234, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009, the pay ought to have been fixed at Rs.5,400 + Grade Pay Rs.1,300 with effect from 01.01.2006. 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 his salary, for which the petitioner was granted time to submit his explanation. __________

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 01:37:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3680 WP No. 35241 of 2026

3. Normally no Writ would lie against the show cause notice and the noticee on receipt is expected to submit their explanation in response to the notice defending his/her case. However, a writ would lie where the competent authority has issued the notice without jurisdiction.

4. 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.

5. Unless, 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.

6. 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

2015 4 SCC 334 __________

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 01:37:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3680 WP No. 35241 of 2026 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 __________

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 01:37:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3680 WP No. 35241 of 2026 employer's right to recover.

7. This Court is of the view that if any recovery order is passed pursuant to the re-fixation of pay based on the Show Cause notice, such recovery alone is liable to be set aside. If no recovery is made, the recovery shall not be made for the excess payment. However, the re-fixation of pay shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and the Government Orders in force.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. If any recovery has been made pursuant to the audit objection and show cause notice, the said amount is directed to be refunded to the petitioner, within a period of twelve

(12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any is closed. (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 High Court of Madras, chennai – 600104.

2. The Principal District Judge, Principal District Court, Vellore. __________

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 01:37:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3680 WP No. 35241 of 2026

3. The Chief Administrative Officer, Principal District Court, Vellore.

4. The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General, (Accounts and Entitlements), 361, anna salai, teynampet, chennai - 600108. __________

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 01:37:04 pm )

2026:MHC:3680 WP No. 35241 of 2026 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. GD WP No. 35241 of 2026

03-09-2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 09/09/2026 01:37:04 pm )