WP/44546/2025 of M.VARATHA Vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL on 24 August 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) This writ petition has been filed to call for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Dis. No.808/2021 dated 05.08.2021 in so as it pertains to order of recovery of pay and allowance of Rs.6,74,090/- alone and thereby effecting recovery from the DCRG Benefit and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the excess pay of Rs.6,74,090/- deducted from the DCRG benefits of first petitioner’s husband after his demise along with applicable interest within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The first petitioner’s husband, who was appointed as a Typist in the Judicial Department on 05.02.1997 and died on 17.04.2021, was granted Selection Grade and subsequently revised pay benefits. Though the revised pay was initially fixed at Rs.50,200/-, the third respondent, pursuant to an objection raised by the fourth respondent, re-fixed his pay at Rs.48,800/- + S.P. Rs.240/- and ordered recovery of Rs.6,74,090/- from the DCRG, treating the same as excess payment. Thereafter, the pay of the deceased employee

WP No. 44546 of 2025

was again revised and the fourth respondent sanctioned family pension and death gratuity. However, the amount recovered from the DCRG was not refunded despite repeated representations by the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking refund of the alleged excess amount recovered from the DCRG.

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 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 12015 4 SCC 334

WP No. 44546 of 2025

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.”

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.

WP No. 44546 of 2025

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. No costs. WMP No.49703 of 2025 is ordered. WMP No.49700 of 2025 is ordered on payment of separate Court Fee. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 24-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI To

1. The Registrar General High Court Of Judicature At Madras, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104.

2. The Principal District Judge Vellore -632 009.

3. The District Munsif Vellore -632 009.

4. The Principal Accountant General (Accounts And Entitlement), No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai.

WP No. 44546 of 2025

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. SLI WP No. 44546 of 2025 24-08-2026