Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.D.Maria Clete, S.M.Subramaniam
A.Ramalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Registrar General, Madras High Court – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
The order of refixation of pay and the consequential recovery of excess salary is sought to be assailed in the present writ proceedings.
2.The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, passed the impugned order vide proceedings, dated 09.05.2025.
3.The writ petitioner was appointed as a Copyist in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service. She was promoted upto the level of the Chief Administrative Officer and voluntarily retired from service on 31.01.2025. The internal audit wing of the High Court found that the pay fixation of the petitioner had been erroneously done. Objections were raised. Consequently, the fixation of pay was corrected and a recovery order was passed.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The establishment revised the pay of the petitioner and one increment was granted at the time of promotion. The said increment was later found to be erroneous by the internal audit wing of the High Court.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the increment was granted in accordance with the orders of the Court.
6.In the present case
The court established that recovering excess salary from employees years after erroneous fixation causes undue hardship, especially for pensioners.
The court established that recovery of excess salary from a retired employee is unjustified if it causes undue hardship, despite the authority's power to correct pay errors.
Recovery of excess salary cannot be enforced without prior hearing, especially when no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee is established.
Recovery of excess salary is contingent upon accurate pay fixation prior to retirement, ensuring compliance with existing pay rules.
Recovery of excess salary from retired employees, particularly Class III and IV, is impermissible post-retirement, especially without notice, as held in established case law.
Recovery of excess salary after a significant delay is impermissible, especially when it causes hardship to employees, despite valid corrections in pay fixation.
Recovery from retired employees is impermissible barring exceptional circumstances such as fraud or misrepresentation.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible without adherence to natural justice, especially when payments were made for an extended period without notice.
Opportunity to be heard and prejudice to the petitioner are essential considerations in matters of recovery of excess salary.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
