SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Sathish Kumar, M.Jothiraman, JJ
D.V.Lalitha – Appellant
Versus
Additional Registrar General, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, Madurai – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.11906 of 2026|WMP(MD)No.9013 of 2026



Important Points

Recovery of excess pay impermissible from Group C/D government employees per Supreme Court precedent.

Subject

Service Law - Pay and Allowances

Act Referred

Headnote

The petitioner challenged the recovery of excess pay following re-fixation upon promotion from Bench Clerk Grade-I to Sheristadar, a Group-C post. Citing State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Court held recovery from Group C/D employees impermissible. The Court quashed recovery, directing refund if effected. Issue framed: Whether recovery permissible post pay re-fixation for Group C employee. Ratio: Supreme Court prohibits recovery from Class III/IV (Group C/D) services; applicable squarely here as petitioner holds Group-C post. Impugned order quashed solely regarding recovery; refund directed; writ petition disposed.

Advocates:
For Petitioner: Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
For R1 to R3: Mr.D.Senthil, Standing Counsel
For R4: Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader

Table of Content
1. petition challenges recovery post pay re-fixation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. recovery barred for group c employees per sc. (Para 3)
3. quash recovery, direct refund and dispose writ. (Para 4)

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the order of re-fixation dated 17.12.2025 and the consequential recovery, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the grievance of the petitioner is only with regard to recovery and she is not challenging the order of re-fixation.

3. The said submission is placed on record. The petitioner is now working as Sheristadar in the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, which is a Group-C post. It is well settled that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service) is impermissible in law. The said ratio is squarely applicable to the petitioner’s case. The respondents have already refixed the pay of the petitioner, and the petitioner has no grievance with regard to such re-fixation. The petitioner only seeks cancellation of the recovery amount.

4. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed in respect of recovery alone. If any amount has been recovered pursuant to the impugned proceedings, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner.

5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top