K.Rajesh v. The Registrar General,

Page1 of 9 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. 8955 OF 2026,WP NO. 8964 OF 2026 and WP No. 8977 OF 2026 WP No. 8977 of 2026 R.Deepa ..Petitioner(s) Vs

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

¶2The Principal secretary to Government Home (Court V) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 09

¶3The Principal Accountant General (A and E) AGs office, (Audit ) Complex, Anna Salai, Roast Revor Gardent, Teynampet Chennai 18

¶4the District judge, the Nilgiris, at Udhagamandalam

¶5The District Treasury Udhagamandalam

¶6The district Judge The Nilgiris, at Udhagamandalam ..Respondent(s) K.Rajesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs

¶1The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Page2 of 9 Chennai-104

¶2The Principal secretary to Government Home (Court V) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 09

¶3The Principal Accountant General (A and E) AGs office, (Audit ) Complex, Anna Salai, Roast Revor Gardent, Teynampet Chennai 18

¶4The principal District Munisif cum Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur, the Nilgiris

¶5The District Treasury Udhagamandalam

¶6The District Judge The Nilgiris, at Udhagamandalam ..Respondent(s) WP No. 8964 of 2026 S.Lakshmi Devi ..Petitioner(s) Vs

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

¶2The Principal secretary to Government Home (Court V) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 09

¶3The Principal Accountant General (A and E) AGs office, (Audit ) Complex, Anna Salai, Roast Revor Gardent, Teynampet Chennai 18

¶4The Chief judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam

¶5The District Treasury Page3 of 9 Udhagamandalam

¶6The district Judge The Nilgiris, at Udhagamandalam ..Respondent(s) WP No. 8977 of 2026 Calling for records of the 6th respondent in connection with the show cause notice dated 17.12.2025 and quash the same and direct the respondents to return the amount that has been recovered from the petitioner. Calling for records of the 4th respondent in connection with the proceedings in D. No. 1953/2025 dated 19.11.2025 and quash the same and direct the 4th respondent to return the amount that has been recovered from the petitioner. WP No. 8964 of 2026 Calling for records of the 4th respondent in connection with the proceedings in D. No. 1095 /2025 dated 15.10.2025 and quash the same and direct the 4th respondent to return the amount that has been recovered from the petitioner and pass In all Writ Petitions For Petitioner(s): Ms.Sujith As For Respondent(s): Mr.S. Giridharan for R1, 4 & 6 Mr. T. Ravikumar For R3 No appearance for R2 and 5 Page4 of 9 Common Order (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The batch of writ petitions on hand have been instituted to set aside the impugned proceedings in D. No. 1953/2025 dated 19.11.2025 in W.P. No. 8955 of 2026; D. No. 1095/2025 dated 15.10.2025 in W.P. No. 8964 of 2026 and show cause notice dated 17.12.2025 in W.P. No. 8977 of 2026, which are all show cause notices for recovery of excess pay and allowances paid to the petitioners, to refund the amount recovered and to pass such suitable orders.

¶2The petitioners were initially appointed as Night Watchman/Masalchi and later promoted as Office Assistant. The petitioners were sanctioned one promotional increment for their transfer from Night Watchman/Masalchi to Office Assistant. The writ petitioners were informed through respective impugned show cause notices, that pursuant to the findings of the internal audit wing of the High Court, the grant of sanction of one promotional increment for their transfer from Night Watchman/Masalchi to Office Assistant was held inadmissible to the petitioners as 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. Hence, the excess payment was sought to be recovered from the salary of the writ petitioners, for which they were granted time to submit their explanation. Page5 of 9

¶3Normally no Writ would lie against the show cause notice and the noticee on receipt is expected to submit their explanation in response to the notice defending his/her case. However, a writ would lie where the competent authority has issued the notice without jurisdiction.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that recovery orders were passed insisting the writ petitioners to file these writ petitions.

¶5Unjust 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, in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders.

¶6Unless, 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 petitioners 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.

¶7In 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: 12015 4 SCC 334 Page6 of 9 "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 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 Page7 of 9 arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.

¶8This Court is of the view that if any recovery order is passed pursuant to the re-fixation of pay, such recovery alone is liable to be set aside. If no recovery is made, the recovery shall not be made for the excess payment. However, the re-fixation of pay shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the applicable Pay Rules and the Government Orders in force.

¶9Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of. If any recovery has been made pursuant to the audit objection and show cause notice, the said amount is directed to be refunded to the petitioners, within a period of twelve

(12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 09-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GD To Page8 of 9

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

¶2The Principal secretary to Government Home (Court V) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 09

¶3The Principal Accountant General (A and E) AGs office, (Audit ) Complex, Anna Salai, Roast Revor Gardent, Teynampet Chennai 18

¶4The Presiding officer Labour Court At Udhagamandalam

¶5The District Treasury Udhagamandalam

¶6The district Judge The Nilgiris, at Udhagamandalam Page9 of 9 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR J. GD WP NO. 8955 OF 2026,WP NO. 8964 OF 2026 and WP No. 8977 OF 2026 09-07-2026