Madras High Court
WP/27069/2026 of P.Shanthi Vs The Registrar General on 24 August 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.08.2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
W.P.NOS.27069, 27090, 27098, 27100, 27944, 29405, 23440, 23742, 28041, 28655, 30460, 30461, 31100, 31396 AND 31025 OF 2026
AND
CONNECTED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS
W.P.NO.27069 OF 2026
P.Shanthi
…
Petitioner
Vs.
2.The Special District Judge
The Special District Court (MACT)
Dharmapuri.
3.The Sessions Judge
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of
Cases under POCSO Act
Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents
:
:
Mr.M.Kempraj
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.27090 OF 2026
K.Sridhar
…
Petitioner
Vs.
Dharmapuri.
3.The Sessions Judge
Fast Track Mahila Court
Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents
:
:
Mr.M.Kempraj
Standing Counsel
S.Elangovan
…
Petitioner
Vs.
Dharmapuri.
3.The Principal District Administrative Officer The Principal District Court, Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents
:
:
Mr.E.K.Kumaresan
W.P.NO.27100 OF 2026
G.Sumathi
…
Petitioner
Vs.
Dharmapuri.
3.The Principal District Administrative Officer The Principal District Court, Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents
:
:
Mr.E.K.Kumaresan
W.P.NO.27944 OF 2026
S.Karunakaran
…
Petitioner
Vs.
Dharmapuri.
3.The Principal District Administrative Officer The Principal District Court, Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents
:
:
Mr.M.Kempraj
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.29405 OF 2026
J.Sankarananda Barathi
…
Petitioner
Vs.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Court V) Department
Fort Saint George,
Chennai – 9.
3.The Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri.
4.The Principal Accountant General (A and E)
AG’s Office (Audit) Complex,
Anna Salai, Roast Revor Garden,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
5.The District Treasury Officer
Krishnagiri.
6.The Labour Court
Hosur.
…
Respondents
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 6th respondent in connection with the proceedings of ROC
No.657/2023 dated 20.09.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents to return the amount that had been recovered from the petitioner.
For Petitioner
:
Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondents 1, 3, 5 & 6
:
Mr.S.Kaithamalaikumaran
For Respondent 2
:
Mr.R.K.Sekina Reshma
Additional Govt. Pleader
For Respondent 4
:
No appearance
P.Vijayan
…
Petitioner
Vs.
Dharmapuri.
3.The Special District Judge
The Special District Court (MACT)
Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents quash the same in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of “State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
on 18.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014”.
For Petitioner
:
:
Mr.S.Thangavel
W.P.NO.23742 OF 2026
C.Sujatha
…
Petitioner
Vs.
Dharmapuri.
3.The Principal District Administrative Officer
The Principal District Court
Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents
:
:
Mr.S.Thangavel
O.Annadurai
…
Petitioner
Vs.
2.The Special District Judge
The Special District Court (MACT)
Dharmapuri.
3.The Sessions Judge
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of
Cases under POCSO Act
Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents unjust, unwarranted and uncalled and consequently directing the third respondent to refund the so far recovered amount from his salary.
For Petitioner
:
:
Mr.M.Kempraj
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.28655 OF 2026
G.Aruvi
…
Petitioner
Vs.
Dharmapuri.
3.The Principal District Administrative Officer
The Principal District Court
Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents
:
:
Mr.M.Kempraj
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.30460 OF 2026
P.Arulmozhi
…
Petitioner
Vs.
Dharmapuri.
3.The Additional District Judge
The Additional District Court
Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents
:
:
Mr.M.Palanimuthu
W.P.NO.30461 OF 2026
A.Kousalya
…
Petitioner
Vs.
Dharmapuri.
3.The Principal District Administrative Officer
The Principal District Court
Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents
:
:
Mr.Ebenezer Paul
W.P.NO.31100 OF 2026
S.Raja
…
Petitioner
Vs.
Dharmapuri.
3.The Sessions Judge
Fast Track Mahila Court
Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents
:
:
Mr.B.Vijay
Standing Counsel
K.Nagajothi
…
Petitioner
Vs.
Dharmapuri.
3.The Family Court Judge
Family Court,
Dharmapuri.
…
Respondents
:
:
Mr.S.Magesh
for Mr.V.Vijay Shankar
W.P.NO.31025 OF 2026
V.Banumathi
…
Petitioner
Vs.
District Court, Ranipet,
Ranipet District.
3.The Accountant General
Office of the Accountant General (A&E)
Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
…
Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in Dis.No.4226/2026/HC, dated 15.07.2026 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and non-est in law.
For Petitioner
:
Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef
For Respondents 1&2
:
Mr.S.John J. Raja Singh
For Respondent 3
:
Mr.S.P.S.Nithyan
for Mr.P.J.Rishikesh
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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.
COMMON ORDER
(Common Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.) All the writ petitioners admittedly are serving as Group – B employees. They have 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 petitioners 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 these employees was directed to be recovered. Pertinently, over and above the eligibility, one additional increment was sanctioned to these employees, which was construed as excess pay granted.
2. The respective learned counsel for the respondents are unable to establish that there was any misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioners nor they have 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: “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 also confirmed. The excess salary, if any recovered already, from anyone of the writ petitioners, 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, all the writ petitions are allowed in part. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.]
24.08.2026 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes TK
To
Dharmapuri.
3. The Special District Judge The Special District Court (MACT) Dharmapuri.
4. The Sessions Judge Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act Dharmapuri.
5. The Sessions Judge Fast Track Mahila Court Dharmapuri.
6. The Principal District Administrative Officer The Principal District Court, Dharmapuri.
7. The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Court V) Department Fort Saint George, Chennai – 9.
Krishnagiri.
9. The Principal Accountant General (A and E) AG’s Office (Audit) Complex, Anna Salai, Roast Revor Garden, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
10. The District Treasury Officer Krishnagiri.
11. The Labour Court Hosur.
12. The Additional District Judge The Additional District Court Dharmapuri.
13. The Family Court Judge Family Court, Dharmapuri.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. TK
W.P.NOS.27069, 27090, 27098, 27100, 27944, 29405, 23440, 23742, 28041, 28655, 30460, 30461, 31100, 31396 AND 31025 OF 2026 24.08.2026 (2/2)