S.Dhanalakshmi 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 order bearing Progs No.91/2024 dated 04.12.2024 passed by 4th respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,99,709/- from petitioner and direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to petitioner.

¶2The petitioner was initially appointed as Typist on 02.02.1998. The petitioner was sanctioned one increment for her promotion as Bench Clerk, Grade III from the post of Assistant, implementing the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission. The petitioner retired from service on attaining superannuation on 30.06.2024. The writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceeding in Progs No.91/2024 dated 04.12.2024, that pursuant to the findings of internal audit wing of the High Court, the grant of sanction of one increment on transfer from the post of Assistant to the post of Bench Clerk Grade – III was held inadmissible, as the post of Bench Clerk Grade III is to be created by redeployment from the post of Assistants which are having identical scale of pay with Grade pay. 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 her DCRG. Page2 of 6

¶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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarize the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would 2015 4 SCC 334 Page3 of 6 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.

¶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 Page4 of 6 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 Progs No.91/2024 dated 04.12.2024 passed by 4th respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.

¶7Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 09-07-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order TSG To

¶1The Registrar General High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 104.

¶2The Principal Secretary of Government, Home (Court V), Secretariat Buildings, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶3The Principal District Judge, Erode.

¶4IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavani, Erode.

¶5The Principal Accountant General (A & E) AG's Office (Audit) Complex, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. Page5 of 6 WPoNo.o28567oofo2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,eJ. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,eJ. TSG WPeNo.e28567eofe2025 &eWMP.Nos.31979e&e31981eofe2025 09-07-2026 Page6oofo6

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 & WMP.Nos.31979 & 31981 of 2025 S.Dhanalakshmi ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General High Court of Madras, Chennai – 600 104. 2. The Principal Secretary of Government, Home (Court V), Secretariat Buildings, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 3. The Principal District Judge, Erode. 4. IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhavani, Erode. 5. The Principal Accountant General (A & E) AG's Office (Audit) Complex, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the order bearing Progs No.91/2024 dated 04.12.2024 on the file of the 4th Respondent and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.1,99,709/- recovered from the petitioner and for consequential orders. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Harshavarthan for Mr.K.Sharath Chandran Page1 of 6 For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Palanimuthu for R1, R3 & R4 R2 – No appearance Mr. T. Ravikumar for R5