ORDER

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

The present Writ Petition has been instituted, challenging the order dated 24.08.2026 passed by the 2^nd respondent, ordering recovery of amount paid excessively.

2. Writ Petitioner herein was appointed as Copyist in the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 25.02.2007 and subsequently, promoted as Head Clerk. Pursuant to the objection raised by Internal Audit Wing in respect of her fixation of pay, the impugned notice was issued for recovery of the excess amount. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner is before this Court.

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 Official respondents in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders shall continue.

4. However, Officials 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 Writ 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 vs. Rafiq Masih, 12015 4 SCC 334 and held as under:

“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 cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.”

6. In view of the facts and circumstances, the revision of pay, if any effected pursuant to the Audit Objection, is confirmed, but the recovery of excess amount is not valid in the eye of law. The excess amount, if any recovered from the Writ Petitioner herein, is directed to be re-paid to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 24.08.2026 passed by the 2^nd respondent is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.