IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Sathish Kumar, M.Jothiraman, JJ
M.Nagarjan – Appellant
Versus
District Munsif Court, Devakottai – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.2463 of 2026|W.M.P.(MD)No.2019 of 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges recovery of excess salary from erroneous fixation. (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents admit erroneous pay fixation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. recovery barred for group c employees per precedent. (Para 5) |
| 4. quash recovery; refund amounts; petition allowed. (Para 6) |
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the impugned order for recovery of excess amount of salary paid for the period from 16.07.2009 to 13.11.2025 amounting to Rs.1,83,756/-, this Writ Petition has been filed.
2.The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on
13.07.2009 and he is till working as Junior Assistant. While so, a memo has been issued to the petitioner stating that the pay has been wrongly fixed and therefore, now the respondent has initiated action for recovery of excess payment paid. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
3. It is the contention of the second respondent that the pay of the petitioner has been erroneously fixed by the authorities. Therefore, they issued the impugned proceedings dated 19.12.2025.
4. This Court heard the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. It is admitted by the respondents that the pay was erroneously fixed only by the authorities. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working in 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.
6. 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.
7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.