Recovery of excess salary paid due to an employer's error from Class III or IV employees is impermissible if it results in hardship, even if the pay fixation is lawfully revised.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR WP No. 11547 of 2026 A.Kathreine W/o.Aruldoss No.54/56,Vivekananda nagar Marakkanam Road Thindivanam Villupuram District ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, High court building Chennai-104

2.The Principal District Munsif Thindivanam Villupuram District

3.The Sub Treasury officer Thindivanam Treasury office Villupuram District ..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in impugned proceedings dated 20.1.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same in so far as recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.54,752/-for the period from 1.7.2014 to 31.12.2022 from the petitioners monthly salary is concerned consequently direct the respondents remit back the recovered amount of Rs.54,752/-to the petitioner within a time.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Balamanikandan For Respondent(s): Mr.E.K.Kumaresan, for R1 & R2

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The Writ Petition has been filed calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent in impugned proceedings dated 20.01.2023, quash the same in so far as recovery of excess pay and allowance and to direct the 3^rd respondent to remit back the recovered amount.

2. The petitioner was appointed as full time Masalchi on 26.04.2010 and later promoted as Office Assistant on 01.07.2014. The petitioner was sanctioned one increment for her promotion by the 2^nd respondent. But it was informed through impugned order dated 20.01.2023, that as per the G.O.Ms.No.17507/85-4/P and AR (Est-F), dated 24.07.1985, the sanction of one increment for transfer from one post to other post in the same cadre was said to be inadmissible and the scale of pay was found to be excessive by the Audit Wing of this Court. Based on the audit objection, the pay was revised accordingly, and excess salary paid to the petitioner was sought to be recovered from the writ petitioner’s salary.

3. Unjust gain of public money is impermissible under law. In such circumstances, the Authorities Competent are empowered to rectify the errors in fixation of pay and grant the correct pay as applicable. Thus, the revised pay fixation granted by the respondents in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders shall continue.

4. However, the respondents are unable to establish that there was a misrepresentation on the part of the employee during fixation of pay. It is an error committed by the Establishment for which the petitioner cannot be penalised after a lapse of many years. Recovery of excess salary at this length of time would result in extreme hardship to the employee.

5. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also enumerated the legal principles in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, 2015 4 SCC 334 and held as hereunder:

“18.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, summarize the following 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