##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. 39599 of 2026 CNR: {HCMA012230582026}

S. Gunaseelan S/o. V.M. Sekaran, No.13/5 Salichi Appu Mudali Street, Pudupet, Gudiyatham, Vellore District -632 602 ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

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

2. The Additional District Judge (FTC), Vellore District.

3. The Accountant General, Office of the Accountant General (Accountants and Entitlements), 361 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 108 ..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent in DIS No.893/2026, dated 24.08.2026 and quash the same, and consequently direct the Respondents to forbear from effecting any recovery from the salary of the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): MS.C.N.Vinobha For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Santhanaraman

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.

893/2026 dated 24.08.2026 passed by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs. 1,13,141/- 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 Office Assistant and subsequently promoted as Junior Assistant on 07.03.2017. Writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceedings in Dis. Order No. 893/2026 dated 24.08.2026, that pursuant to the finding of internal audit wing of the High Court, the pay has been incorrectly fixed at 24,000/- instead of 23,300/-, since that one promotional increment granted for his promotion from the post of Senior Bailiff to Junior Assistant was held inadmissible to the petitioner. 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 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