H.Nainar Mohamed v. The Registrar General

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 B1-Progs.No. 22/2026 dated 30.01.2026 passed by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,67,517/- from petitioner and to pass suitable orders.

¶2The petitioner is now working was initially appointed as Junior Page2 of 6 Assistant and joined service on 04.10.1995, later promoted to Assistant and to Grade II Bench Clerk w.e.f. 14.11.2009. He was promoted as Head Clerk on

03.07.2013 and later promoted as Sheristadar on 01.06.2016. The writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceeding in B1-Progs.No. 22/2026 dated 30.01.2026, that pursuant to the internal audit wing of the High Court, wherein his pay fixed at the time of being promoted as Head Clerk from the post of Grade II Bench Clerk and the sanction of grade pay in the post of Senior Sheristadar were held to be incorrect. 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.

¶3Unjust 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.

¶4However, 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. Page3 of 6

¶5In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also enumerated the legal principles in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih1 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 12015 4 SCC 334 Page4 of 6 rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.

¶6In view of the facts and circumstances, the revision of pay effected pursuant to the Audit Objection is confirmed, but the recovery of excess pay alone is set aside. The excess amount, if any recovered on account of the impugned order is directed to be re-paid to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned proceeding in B1-Progs.No. 22/2026 dated 30.01.2026 passed by 2nd respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.

¶7Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 09-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GD Page5 of 6 To

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

¶2The District Judge, The Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam WP.No.15421oofo2026 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,eJ. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,eJ. GD WPeNo.e15421eofe2026 09-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR WP No. 15421 of 2026 H.Nainar Mohamed ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras, Chennai-104 2. The District Judge, The Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam ..Respondent(s) Calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in B1-Progs. No.22/2026 dated 30.01.2026 quash the same For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Sellapandian For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Thangavel Standing Counsel