WP/50462/2025 of E.SANGARANARAYANAN 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 records pursuant to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in D.Nos. 2662, 2663, 2664 of 2025, dated 26.11.2025 for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.5,28,035/- from the petitioner and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unjust in Law and consequently direct the respondents not to revise the salary of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner, a person with 70% disability, was appointed as an Office Assistant on compassionate grounds and subsequently served in various posts in the judicial department. An increment was sanctioned to him with effect from 09.12.2010, pursuant to the applicable Government Orders, and his pay was accordingly fixed. During an internal audit conducted in November 2021, it was pointed out that the said increment had been erroneously sanctioned, resulting in excess payment of salary. The petitioner submitted several representations seeking waiver of the excess recovery, pointing out his financial difficulties and family circumstances. While his representations were pending, the respondents initiated recovery proceedings. By the impugned order dated 26.11.2025, the petitioner’s pay was revised to Rs.29,500/- with effect from 01.01.2026 and recovery of an alleged excess payment of Rs.28,035/- for the period from 09.12.2010 to 30.11.2025 was ordered in 101 monthly instalments. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 03:31:08 pm )

WP No. 50462 of 2025

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 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.

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). 12015 4 SCC 334

( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 03:31:08 pm )

WP No. 50462 of 2025

(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 petitioner 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) Index: Yes/No 24-08-2026 Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sli

( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 03:31:08 pm )

WP No. 50462 of 2025

To

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

2. The Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

3. The Judicial Magistrate No.I Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 03:31:08 pm )

WP No. 50462 of 2025

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. SLI WP No. 50462 of 2025 24-08-2026

( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 03:31:08 pm )