1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28-10-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No.23668 of 2017 and WMP.Nos.24841 of 2017 & 30456 of 2018 C.Santhamani Petitioner Vs

1. The Accountant General Office of the Accountant General, Economic & Revenue Sectior, 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018

2.The Personal Assistant (General) Officer of the Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai-60028.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER:This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in N 12551/k3/2016 dated 11.08.2017 the respondents from recovering the alleged excess of salary that is stated to have been paid to the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): M/s.V.Srimathi For Respondent(s): M/ss.Hema Murali Krishnan for R1 Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan Spl Govt Pleader M/s.R.L.Karthika GA for R2

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in N

12551/k3/2016 dated 11.08.2017 passed by the second respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, C.Santhamani, joined the Tamil Nadu Registration Department in February 1991 as a Junior Assistant. In 2002, she was transferred to Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi, under G.O.Ms.No.962, dated 18.10.2002, and returned to her parent department in 2012. In the year 2016, the second respondent initiated recovery proceedings citing that the petitioner’s pay fixation was erroneous, and she was granted grade pay of Rs.4200/- instead of Rs.2800, resulting in excess payment of Rs.2,28,044/- from 2011 to 2017. Despite her representations, the second respondent passed on order in Proceedings N 12551/K3/2016 dated 11.08.2017, to recovery the excess payment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this Writ Petitioner with the above said prayer.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent has passed the impugned proceedings without application of mind and the same deserves to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel also relied on the judgment of The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) AND OTHERS (2015) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 334), wherein in the hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the following guidelines for effecting recovery:

“12. 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, summarise the 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 be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.”

6. Applying the above judgment to the present facts, the execess payment of Rs.2,28,004/- was made from 2011 to 2017, a period more than five years. Therefore, recovery is impermissible in law.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order, dated

11.08.2017 passed by the second respondent in Proceedings in N 1