G.Paranthaman 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 D No.42/2025 dated 21.04.2025 passed by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,78,966/- from petitioner and direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount and pass suitable orders.

¶2The petitioner was initially appointed as Night Watchman on

01.03.2000 and later promoted to various levels. He attained superannuation on 30.04.2025 while he worked as Junior Assistant. While he was working as Night Watchman, he was transferred to the post of Office Assistant, for which he was sanctioned one promotional increment. The writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceeding in D No.42/2025 dated 21.04.2025, that pursuant to the finding of internal audit wing of the High Court, the grant of sanction of one promotional increment on the transfer from the post of Night Watchman to the post of Office Assistant was held inadmissible, as per the Government letter No. 17507/85-4/P&AR(Est-F) Department dated

24.07.1985, where it has been stated that Class IV Employees may be appointed to Class III posts only by way of transfer of service and not by promotion, even though the scale of pay for the above posts are identical. 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 Page3 of 6 DCRG.

¶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.

¶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 12015 4 SCC 334 Page4 of 6 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, 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. Page5 of 6

¶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 D No.42/2025 dated 21.04.2025 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, if any is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 09-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GD To

¶1The Registrar General, High Court Madras - 104

¶2the Judicial Magistrate 1 Villupuram WPoNo.o50790oofo2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,eJ. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,eJ. GD WPeNo.e50790eofe2025 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 G.Paranthaman S/o. Govinthasamy, No.113, Chozhan Street, LN Puram, Panruti, Cuddalore 607 106 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General, High Court Madras - 104 2. the Judicial Magistrate 1 Villupuram ..Respondent(s) Call for the records in office order D.No. 42 of 2025 dated 21.04.2025 passed by 2nd respondent for recover of excess pay and allowance of Rs. 1,78,966/- from petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to remit back the recovered amount to petitioner For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ajay Kanna for Mr.S.Tamilselvan For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Durai Eswar Page2 of 6