##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. 38277 of 2026 CNR: {HCMA012016392026}

J.Gopinath Sherishtadar, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Vellore-632009 ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

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

2. The Principal District Judge, Combined Court Building, Sathuvachari,Vellore District, Vellore-632009

3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore-632009 ..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned recovery notice issued by the 3rd respondent in Dis.No.1995/2026,dated 10.08.2026 and all consequential proceedings and upon examining the same,be pleased to QUASH the impugned notice and all proceedings taken in pursuance thereof,and consequently direct the Respondents to retain and maintain the pay of the Petitioner as originally fixed upon his promotion with effect from

11.03.2020,without any recovery whatsoever.

For Petitioner(s): Ms.A.Shabana For Respondent(s): MR.M.T.Arunan

ORDER

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

Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the impugned proceeding dated 10.08.2026 passed by 3rd respondent, which is a recovery notice for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,65,313/- from petitioner and to pass such suitable orders.

2. The petitioner joined as Junior Assistant on 26.02.2007 and has been promoted to various levels and is presently working as Sherishtadar. On 10.08.2026, the 3rd respondent issued a recovery notice, stating that pursuant to the findings of internal audit wing of the High Court, the sanction of one promotional increment upon his promotion from the post of Translator, Class IV Category 3 to the post of Superintendent in Class IV, Category 2 of TNJMS was held inadmissible as per Govt. Lr. No.6441401/PC/2024-1, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 19.01.2024. Hence, the excess payment of Rs.1,65,313/- was sought to be recovered from the salary of the writ petitioner, for which the petitioner was granted time to submit his remarks and mode of recovery of the said amount.

3. Normally no Writ would lie against the recovery notice and the noticee on receipt is expected to submit their explanation in response to the notice defending his/her case. However, a writ would lie where the competent authority has issued the notice without jurisdiction.

4. 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, in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders.

5. Unless, 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.

6. 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 th