Madras High Court
WP/50392/2025 of K.SUGUNA Vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL on 21 August 2026
WP No. 50392 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP No. 50392 of 2025
and
WMP No.56402 of 2025
K.Suguna
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Registrar General
High Court Of Madras, Chennai 600 104
2. The Subordinate Judge,
Subordinate Court, Vandavasi,
Thiruvannamalai District
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 made in Dis. No 3043/ 2025 on the file of 2nd Respondent herein, and quash the same and Consequently directing the Respondents to reimburse the amount deducted from November, 2025 based on the Impugned order dated 24.11.2025 made in Dis. No 3043/2025 on the file of 2nd Respondent For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M.Sathyamoorthy
For Respondent(s):
M/S.C.R.Malarvannan
( Uploaded on: 28/08/2026 04:12:09 pm )
WP No. 50392 of 2025
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.) The Writ Petition has been filed to set aside the order of the 2nd respondent dated 24.11.2025 in respect of recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,51,783/- for the period from 03.04.2006 to 30.11.2022 and from 01.12.2022 to 31.10.2025, from the petitioner.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Examiner on 24.04.1992 and subsequently, promoted as Junior Assistant, Principal District Court with effect from 04.06.2008. After a long time, the internal audit wing of the High Court had found inadmissible promotional increment to the petitioner because of the wrong fixation of salary and ordered to recover a sum of Rs.2,51,783/- being excess pay and allowance paid to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
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
( Uploaded on: 28/08/2026 04:12:09 pm )
WP No. 50392 of 2025
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).
(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 12015 4 SCC 334
( Uploaded on: 28/08/2026 04:12:09 pm )
WP No. 50392 of 2025
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. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 21-08-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order skr
( Uploaded on: 28/08/2026 04:12:09 pm )
WP No. 50392 of 2025
To
1. The Registrar General High court of Madras, Chennai 600 104
2. The subordinate Judge, Subordinate Court, Vandavasi, Thiruvannamalai District
( Uploaded on: 28/08/2026 04:12:09 pm )
WP No. 50392 of 2025
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. skr WP No. 50392 of 2025 21-08-2026
( Uploaded on: 28/08/2026 04:12:09 pm )