##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-09-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN WP No. 39351 of 2026 and WMP No.44213 of 2026 CNR: {HCMA012163982026}

Rajalakshmi W/O.Mukesh Grade III Bench Clerk District Munsif-cum Judicial Magistrate Court Vazhapadi, Salem District.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Chennai-104.

2. The Principal District Judge Salem District, Salem.

3. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Vazhapadi, Salem District.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in O.No.24/2026 dated 24.07.2026 passed by the 3rd respondent quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): MR.R.Nalliyappan For Respondent(s): MR.Anand Subramanian Standing Counsel

ORDER

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

This writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in O.No.24/2026 dated 24.07.2026 passed by the third respondent and quash the same.

2.The petitioner was appointed as Examiner on 11.09.2013. After promoted to various levels, the pay of the petitioner was fixed by the competent authorities in accordance with the applicable Rules. Pursuant to an objection raised by the Internal Audit, the impugned proceedings was issued by the third respondent regarding recovery of the excess amount.

Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

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 petitioners 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 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 effected pursuant to the Audit Objection is confirmed, but the recovery of excess pay alone is set aside. The excess amount recovered on account of the impugned order is directed to be re-paid to the petitioner within