C.Ramesh v. The Registrar General,

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Office order No.77 of 2025 dated 24.11.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,73,865/- from the petitioner and consequently, direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to the petitioner.

¶2The petitioner is working as Sheristadar under the 2nd respondent. He was promoted from the post of Assistant to Bench Clerk Grade III and joined duty as Bench Clerk Grade III on 11.08.2011. He was sanctioned promotional increment @ 3% with effect from 11.08.2011. His pay has been fixed at 9850+2800 G.P. in the scale of pay of Rs.PB1-5200-2022+2800 G.P. The 1st respondent, after a long time, issued Audit Report stating that there is an inadmissible sanction of one increment on promotion from the post of Assistant to the post of Bench Clerk Grade III. Hence, the excess pay and allowances on pay fixation for the period from 11.08.2011 to 30.11.2025 amounting to Rs.2,73,865/- is to be recovered from the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 came to be passed. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶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 Page3 of 6 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:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and 12015 4 SCC 334 Page4 of 6 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 a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone. Page5 of 6

¶7Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 20-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VSI To

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

¶2The Subordinate Judge Tirukoilur District WPoNo.o50400oofo2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,eJ. and N.SENTHILKUMAR,eJ. vsi WPeNo.e50400eofe2025 20-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and W.M.P.No.56415 of 2025 C.Ramesh D/o.Chakkaravarthy, No.158a, Thirukkovilur Main Road, Manalurpet, Kallakurichi-605 754 ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai-104 2. The Subordinate Judge Tirukoilur District ..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 of the proceedings in Office order No.77/2025 dated 24.11.2025 issued by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,73,865/- from petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to the petitioner. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Ajay Kanna for Mr.S.Tamilselvan For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, Standing Counsel for Respondents Page2 of 6