D.Srinivasan 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. 285/2025 dated 26.02.2025 passed by 3rd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.91,220/- from petitioner and direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount to petitioner.

¶2The petitioner was initially appointed as Night Watchman on

01.11.2007, later temporarily promoted as Office Assistant in 2010 which was later regularised. The petitioner was sanctioned one promotional increment for his transfer from Night Watchman to Office Assistant. The writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceedings in D.No.285/2025 dated 26.02.2025 , that pursuant to the findings 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 and Government Letter No. 4491249/Courts-V/2023-5 dated

11.09.2023, which is addressed to the Registrar General, Madras High Court, where it has been stated that as in the Fourth Pay Commission Government fixed identical scale of pay for all the posts under Class I to IV in Tamil Nadu Basic Services, (i.e. Rs.450-10-570-720) on making appointment from one post to another post in the same class i,e, I to IV, no promotion orders is to be issued; instead, such appointment is to be made only by Transfer of Service. Page3 of 7 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.

¶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 12015 4 SCC 334 Page4 of 7 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, 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 7

¶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. 285/2025 dated 26.02.2025 passed by 3rd 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 Page6 of 7 To

¶1The Registrar General High Court Of Judicature At Madras, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104

¶2The Principal District Judge Tiruvallur.

¶3The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani

¶4The Principal Accountant General (accounts And Entitlement), No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. WPoNo.o44693oofo2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,eJ. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,eJ. GD WPeNo.e44693eofe2025 09-07-2026 Page7oofo7

Page1 of 7 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 D.Srinivasan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General High Court Of Judicature At Madras, High Court Buildings, Chennai-600 104 2. The Principal District Judge Tiruvallur. 3. The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani 4. The Principal Accountant General (accounts And Entitlement), No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in D.No.285/ 2025 dated 26.02.2025 and all consequential action taken in pursuance of the impugned order and thereby quash the same in so far as it pertains to recovery of excess payment alone and consequentially direct the respondent to refund the excess sum already recovered from the petitioner from monthly salary of the petitioner in instalments, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondent(s): Mr.M.T.Arunan for R1-3 Ms.V.Kanchana for Mr.V.Vijayashankar Standing Counsel for R4 Page2 of 7