Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41809
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, R. Poornima, JJ
Parimalam – Appellant
Versus
Principal District Judge – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.14321 of 2026|WMP(MD)No.10745 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.Malaiyendran
For the Respondents: Sivaraman
Recovery of excess salary payments from Class-IV employees is impermissible when the recovery is initiated after a period exceeding five years and the employee is nearing the age of superannuation, as per established legal principles.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order of pay refixation and subsequent recovery of excess salary paid between 2012 and 2026. The court examined the arguments of the petitioner who, being a Class-IV employee nearing superannuation, contested the recovery based on established legal precedents prohibiting recovery of excess payments from such employees near retirement. The primary issues were whether the refixation was valid and whether the recovery of alleged excess salary was permissible under law. Relying on judicial precedent, the court reaffirmed that recovery from a Group-IV employee, specifically after a long lapse of time and approaching retirement, is impermissible. The writ petition is partly allowed, setting aside the recovery order of Rs. 2,02,366/- while upholding the refixation of the petitioner's pay.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order of pay refixation and recovery of excess salary before retirement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicability of protection against recovery for class-iv employees nearing superannuation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. order setting aside recovery while maintaining pay refixation. (Para 7) |
(Order of the Court was made by D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.)
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated
06.05.2026. By the said order, the pay of the petitioner was revised downwards and refixed and the excess payment that is made with effect from 01.10.2012 upto 30.04.2026, totally amounting to Rs.2,02,366/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently working as Office Assistant and the recovery is now sought to be made at the verge of retirement. The petitioner is due for retirement with effect from 30.06.2026. Even though the writ petition is filed, challenging the very refixation itself, the learned counsel would contest the order only with reference to the recovery that is ordered to be made.
3. According to the learned counsel, the same is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab vs.
Rafiq Masih (reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334)
4. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that as far as the refixation is concerned, the same is justified and if opportunity is granted, further counter will be filed.
As far as recovery is concerned, since excess amount is paid, the same is sought to be recovered.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
6. During the course of the arguments, upon query by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner himself would restrict the arguments only with reference to the recovery that is made. As far as the recovery is concerned, firstly, it is made from Class-IV employee, secondly, it is made for a period in excess of five years and that too at the verge of retirement. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is covered by more than one limb of para 12 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rafiq Masih's case cited supra.
7. In view thereof, this writ petition is partly allowed on the following terms :
1. The impugned order dated 06.05.2026 shall stand set aside inasmuch as it relates to order recovery of a sum of Rs.2,02,366/- and it is upheld with reference to the revision of pay of the petitioner is concerned. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
