M.Kanagavalli v. The Additional District Judge

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the order in R. No.1329/2025 dated 30.10.2025 passed by 1st respondent for recovery of excess pay from petitioner and direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount and pass further orders as the court deems fit and proper . Page2 of 6

¶2The petitioner initially joined service on 11.08.2008 as an Examiner in the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court at Perambalur District. Later, the petitioner was ousted from service for want of a vacancy. The petitioner then filed W.P. No. 13818/2009, and pursuant to the writ order, was re-appointed and joined as Examiner on 18.09.2009. Later, based on the Internal Audit Wing report, the 1st Respondent passed the impugned order in R.No.1329/2025 dated 30.10.2025, ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.1,92,687/-, from the petitioner, alleging it to be excess payment made due to wrong fixation.

¶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 order made in order R.No.1329/2023 dated 30.10.2025 passed by 1st 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, stands 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 Additional District Judge Combined Court Complex, Ariyalur

¶2The Principal District Judge Combined Court Complex, Ariyalur

¶3The Registrar General High Court Of Madras, Chennai 104 WPoNo.o45926oofo2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,eJ. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,eJ. GD WPeNo.e45926eofe2025 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 M.Kanagavalli ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Additional District Judge Combined Court Complex, Ariyalur 2. The Principal District Judge Combined Court Complex, Ariyalur 3. The Registrar General High Court Of Madras, Chennai 104 ..Respondent(s) Calling for the records of the 1st respondent impugned order in R.No.1329/2025, dated 30.10.2025 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondents to refund the recovered pay pursuant to the impugned order with interest to the petitioner. For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Saravana Vel For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran