Recovery of excess salary payments from Class III and IV employees is impermissible when the overpayment resulted from employer error rather than employee misrepresentation, as such recovery causes undue hardship and is considered iniquitous.

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. 12693 of 2026 Krishnaveni ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Registrar General The Honble High Court of Madras, High Court Building, Chennai-600 104.

2. The Principal District Judge Villupuram District Court, Villupuram.

3. The Principal District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate Vikkiravandi, 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 in D.No.990 of 2023 dated 12.01.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent quash the same in so far as recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,13,407/- for the period from 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2022 from the petitioner’s monthly salary is concerned, consequently direct the respondents remit back the recovered amount of Rs.1,13,407/- to the petitioners within a time that may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Balamanikandan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Sunil Kumar

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 in D No. 990/2023 dated 12.01.2023, quash the same so far as the recovery if excess pay and allowance and to consequently direct to remit back the recovered amount within a time fixed by this court.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as full time Masalchi on

04.08.2000 and later promoted as Office Assistant on 01.10.2007. The petitioner was sanctioned one increment for her promotion by the 2^nd respondent. The writ petitioner was informed through impugned order in D.No. 990/2023, dated 12.01.2023, that pursuant to the internal audit wing of the High Court, the grant of sanction of one increment was held inadmissible to the petitioner as Class IV Employees may be appointed to Class III posts only by way of transfer of service and not by promotion, even though the scale of pay for the above posts are identical. Based on the audit objection, the pay was revised accordingly and excess pay and allowances paid to the petitioner was sought to be recovered from the her 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, 12015 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 th