K.Venkateswaran v. The Principal Secretary

O R D E R [Made by S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,] The writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the fourth respondent, recovering excess pay and allowances to the petitioner from 15.01.2010 to 31.10.2025. Page Nos.2/7

¶2The petitioner was appointed as Copyist on 12.12.1996 in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service. He was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant on 15.03.2001 and subsequently, promoted to the post of Assistant on 01.08.2007 and then promoted as Bench Clerk III on

01.10.2010 in the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi. Now he is presently working at Judicial Magistrate cum District Munsif Court, Thiruvennainallur, Villupuram District. The Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, vide proceedings dated 20.10.2011, sanctioned one increment to the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.234 dated 01.06.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.450 dated

10.02.2011. The second respondent, after a long time issued an Audit Report stating that there was an inadmissible sanction of one increment to the petitioner for promotion from the post of Assistant to Bench Clerk Grade-III. Hence, the excess pay and allowances on pay fixation for the period from 15.01.2010 to 31.10.2025 amounting to Rs.2,42,867/- may also be worked out and to be recovered. Aggrieved by the order of the 4th Respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶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 Page Nos.3/7 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 Page Nos.4/7

(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 already recovered on account of the impugned order is directed to be re-paid to the Page Nos.5/7 petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned order is 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.) (R.S.V.,J.)

25.06.2026 Index : Yes Speaking order / Non-speaking order mk To

¶1The Principal Secretary Home – V (Courts) Fort St.George Chennai.

¶2The Registrar General High Court of Madras Chennai-600 104.

¶3The Principal District Munsif Kallakurichi.

¶4The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Thiruvennainallur Villupuram District.

¶5The District Treasuries Office Villupuram. Page Nos.6/7 S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., mk

25.06.2026 (2/2) Page Nos.7/7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.06.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL and W.M.P.No.55007 of 2025 K.Venkatesan S/o.Krishnan ... Petitioner * Petitioner's name was amended vide order dated 25.06.2026 in W.M.P.No.25768 of 2026 in W.P.No.49237 of 2025. vs. 1. The Principal Secretary Home – V (Courts) Fort St.George Chennai. 2. The Registrar General High Court of Madras Chennai-600 104. 3. The Principal District Munsif Kallakurichi. 4. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Thiruvennainallur Villupuram District. Page Nos.1/7 5. The District Treasuries Office Villupuram. … Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in proceedings D.No.1849 dated 28.11.2025 issued by the 4th respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,42,867/- from the petitioner and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 and consequently, direct the respondents not to recover any amount from the petitioner's salary and to refund any amount already recovered with all consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan for Mr.K.Chozhan For Respondents : Mr.M.Santhanaraman, for R2 to R4 R1 and R5 – No appearance *****