Madras High Court
WP/34338/2026 of V.Chellammal Vs The Registrar General on 31 August 2026
WP No. 34338 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP No. 34338 of 2026
V.Chellammal
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Registrar General,
High Court, Madras-104.
2. The Principal District Munsif,
Tirukoilur, Kallakurichi District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the proceedings in office order No.103 /2026 dated 08.06.2026 issued by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,76,087/- from petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to the petitioner.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S. TAMILSELVAN
For Respondent(s):
MR.HARSH VARTHAN
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 of the proceedings in office order No.103 /2026 dated 08.06.2026 issued by the second respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,76,087/- from petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to the petitioner.
WP No. 34338 of 2026
2. The petitioner was working as a Head Clerk under the second respondent and attained superannuation on 31.01.2026. She was promoted from the post of Assistant to Bench Clerk Grade III and joined duty on 14.12.2013, pursuant to which a promotional increment of 3% was sanctioned and her pay was fixed accordingly. Subsequently, the first respondent, based on an audit report, directed recovery of the alleged excess payment on the ground that the post of Bench Clerk Grade III was created by redeployment of Assistants and was not a transfer post. Accordingly, the second respondent issued Office Order No.103 of 2026 dated 08.06.2026, directing the recovery of Rs.2,76,087/- from the petitioner’s pensionary benefits for the period from 14.12.2013 to 31.01.2026 and the said amount has been recovered from the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
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
WP No. 34338 of 2026
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
WP No. 34338 of 2026
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 order 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 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.) 31-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI To
1. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras-104.
2. The Principal District Munsif, Tirukoilur, Kallakurichi District.
WP No. 34338 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. SLI WP No. 34338 of 2026 31-08-2026