WP/33555/2026 of M.V.K.MAHENDRAN Vs The Registrar General on 25 August 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The writ petitioner admittedly is serving as Group – B employee. He has been granted fixation of pay based on the Pay Rules and Government Orders in force. Subsequently, the internal Audit Party of this Court found that fixation had been done in respect of the writ petitioner was erroneous and not in accordance with Pay Rules and Government Orders in force. Thus, an order of re-fixation was directed to be carried out and excess salary paid to the employee was directed to be recovered. Pertinently, over and above the eligibility, one additional increment was sanctioned to this employee, which was construed as excess pay granted.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents are unable to establish that there was any misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioner nor he has executed any letter of undertaking to repay the excess pay, if any, identified after re-fixation. In the absence of anyone of the above grounds, the recovery, at this length of time, cannot be sustained. Recovery of excess increment paid after a prolonged period would result in hardship.

3. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also enumerated the legal principles in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and held as hereunder:

WP No. 33555 of 2026

“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.”

4. The recovery of excess salary alone is set aside and the re-fixation done by the authorities, in accordance with Pay Rules and Government Orders, are confirmed. The re-fixation in all other respects are

WP No. 33555 of 2026

also confirmed. The excess salary, if any recovered already, from the writ petitioner, the said recovered amount alone is directed to be refunded within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed in part. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 25-08-2026 Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking order / Non-speaking order mk To

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

2. The District Judge The District Court, Tirupathur.

WP No. 33555 of 2026

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. mk WP No. 33555 of 2026 25-08-2026