##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. 38684 of 2026 CNR: {HCMA012147432026}

N.Jayalakshmi ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras, chennai – 600104.

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

3. The Treasury Officer District Treasury Office, Dharmapuri.

..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 27.08.2022 in Roc.No.8087/2022 to recover Rs.46,883/- from the petitioner’s monthly salary, towards excess payment of pay and allowance, due to wrong fixation of pay for the period from 08.11.2017 to 31.07.2022 based on audit objection and quash the same as illegal and direct the 3^rd respondent to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.E.Ravichandran For Respondent(s): MR.P.Ebeneser Paul for R1&2 MR.K.Rajesh Government Advocate for R3

ORDER

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

Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the impugned proceeding in ROC No.8087/2022 dated 27.08.2022 passed by 2^nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.46,883/- from petitioner and direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount and pass suitable orders.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Record Clerk and later promoted to various levels. The writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceeding in ROC No.8087/2022 dated 27.08.2022, that pursuant to the finding of internal audit wing of the High Court, the pay scale to the post of Record Clerk was erroneously fixed at Rs.16600/- (Level 3) instead of Rs. 15900/- (Level 2) and the subsequent increments sanctioned were also held to be erroneous. Based on the audit objection, the pay was revised accordingly, and excess pay and allowances paid to the petitioner from 08.11.2017 to 31.07.2022 was sought to be recovered in 23 instalments from 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 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 according