##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. 39584 of 2026 CNR: {HCMA012153142026}

B.Sivakumar ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai- 600104.

2. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thandarampattu, Thiruvannamalai District.

3. The Additional District Judge, Additional District Court, Thriuvannamalai District.

4. The High Court Audit Recovery High Court of Madras Chennai-104.

..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the Impugned Order dated 17.04.2026 made in Dis. No. 607 of 2026 on the fie of the 2nd Respondent herein and quash the same and consequentially directing the Respondents to reimburse the amount paid by the Petitioner on 07.05.2026 in Challan Number 20260507024611 based on the Impugned order dated 17.04.2026 made in Dis. No.607 of 2026 on the file of the 2nd Respondent.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Sathyamoorthy For Respondent(s): MR.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar For R 1 to 4

ORDER

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

Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the Dis. Order No.

607/2026 dated 17.04.2026 passed by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs. 3,24,688/- from petitioner and direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to petitioner and to pass suitable orders.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Examiner on 05.07.1993 and subsequently retired from service on 30.06.2026. Writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceedings in Dis. Order No. 607/2026 dated 17.04.2026, that pursuant to the finding of internal audit wing of the High Court, the pay has been incorrectly fixed at 16,870/- (12010 + 4800/-) instead of 16270/- (12070 + 4200). 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 him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had deposited the alleged excess money paid to him to the tune of Rs.3,24,688/- in the treasury by e-challan dated 07.05.2026. However, petitioner came to understand that Courts have held that excess salary paid inadvertently cannot be recovered. Thus, he filed the present writ petition.

4.No doubt, petitioner has deposited the recovery amount on the pretext that only on depositing the said amount, he will get his terminal and pensionary benefits. However, he further states that the erroneous pay fixation was by the establishment, and there was no misrepresentation on his part. Thus, the authorities have to verify correctness of the re-fixation made to the petitioner.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 refe