##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-10-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN WP No. 38111 of 2026 CNR: {HCMA012164782026}

P.Palanimuthu ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Madras, Chennai- 600 104.

2. The Additional District Judge, Attur, Salem District.

3. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Valapady,Salem District.

..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorari calling for the records with respect of the impugned Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent in Roc. No. 2021 dated 23.11.2021and proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Roc. No.2026, D.No. 398/ 2026 dated

20.07.2026 and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Nalliyappan For Respondent(s): MR.S.Kaithamalai kumaran

ORDER

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

Writ petition on hand has been instituted to set aside the impugned proceedings in R.O.C No.NIL/2021 dated 23.11.2021 passed by 3^rd respondent and the consequent orders in ROC No. NIL/2026 and D.No. 398/2026 dated 20.07.2026 passed by 2^nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance from petitioner and to pass suitable orders.

2. The petitioner initially joined the judicial service as Senior Bailiff on

02.01.2008 and was later promoted to various posts and served in various designations. The writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceedings in R.O.C No.NIL/2021 dated 23.11.2021 passed by 3^rd respondent and the consequent orders in ROC No. NIL/2026 and D.No. 398/2026 dated 20.07.2026 passed by 2^nd respondent, that pursuant to the internal audit wing of the High Court, the grant of sanction of one additional increment as per Justice Shetty Commission was held inadmissible to the petitioner, as the petitioner joined the service prior to the crucial date for sanction of the increment and the grant of one notional increment for promotion from the post of Head Clerk/Superintendent to Senior Sherishtadar and the subsequent periodical increments sanctioned were also held inadmissible as both the posts carry identical scale of pay. 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 his 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 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 ord