P.Geetha v. The Registrar General

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the 3rd respondent in Order No.14/24 dated 16.03.2024 and the consequential order No.99/24 dated 06.11.2024, revising the petitioner's pay and ordering recovery of Rs.10.04,614/- and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to refund the sum of Rs.10,04,614/- recovered from the petitioner and fix the pension accordingly.

¶2The petitioner was initially appointed as Copyist on 14.08.1995 in the Judicial Department and promoted to the post of Typist on 14.07.2000 and continued to serve in that capacity. After completing the required number of years of service, she became eligible for placement in the Selection Grade. Accordingly, her pay was fixed on 01.01.2016 in the revised pay structure at Rs.8500/- basic pay with grade pay of Rs.4200/-. While so, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned orders dated 16.03.2024 and 06.11.2024 revised the petitioner's pay and ordered for recovery of Rs.10.04,614/- stating that excess pay has made for the period from 14.08.1995 to 30.09.2023. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶3Unjust gain of public money is impermissible under law. In such Page3 of 6 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: 12015 4 SCC 334 Page4 of 6

(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.

¶6In view of the facts and circumstances, the revision of pay effected 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 Page5 of 6 a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.

¶7Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 15-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vsi To

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

¶2The Principal District Judge Villupuram, Villupuram District

¶3The Principal District Munsif Tindivanam, Chennai-600 005

¶4The Principal Accountant General(A and E) 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018 WPoNo.o33611oofo2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,eJ. and N.SENTHILKUMAR,eJ. vsi WPeNo.e33611eofe2025 15-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and W.M.P.No.37754 of 2025 P.Geetha D/o.Perumal, Formerly Typist, No.64/76-a, Bharathiyar Street, V.Maruthur, Villupuram District ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras, Chennai-104 2. The Principal District Judge Villupuram, Villupuram District 3. The Principal District Munsif Tindivanam, Chennai-600 005 4. The Principal Accountant General(a And E) 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018 ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating (1)order 14/24 dated 16.3.2024 and consequential order(2)No.99/24 dated 6.11.2024 of the 3rd respondent revising petitioner pay and ordering recovery of Rs.10,04,614/-quash the same and to issue consequential direction to the respondent 1 to 4 that Grade pay of Rs.4200, fixed as of 1.1.2016 is valid and lawful and refund the sum of Rs.10,04,614/- recovered be refunded to the petitioner and fix the pension accordingly. Page2 of 6 For Petitioner(s): Ms.T.Dharani For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Chandrasekaran for R1 to R3, Mr.V.Vijay Shankar for R4