Mr.C.Anilkumar v. The Registrar General

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 WP No. 24220 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 26356 OF 2026 Mr.C.Anilkumar S/o.T.Chelladurai, Jayankondam Main Road, Udayarpalayam Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur district. presently working as Head Clerk, Additional Sub Court, Ariyalur.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Registrar General High Court of Judicature, madras-104.

2. The principal district judge Ariyalur.

3. Additional sub judge Ariyalur.

..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records relating to the impugned proceeding No. A.No.245/2025 dated 10.11.2025 and 2nd respondent and consequential order made in R.No.945/2025 dated 06.12.2025 passed by the third respondent and to quash same and further direction directing the 2nd respondent to release excess salary already deducted amount from the month of December 2025 till date to petitioner account.

For Petitioner :

R.Subramaniyan For Respondents :

M.Palanimuthu Standing Counsel Order (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The Writ Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential order made in R.No.945/2025 dated 06.12.2025 passed by the third respondent in respect of recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.3,59,847/- for the period from 03.01.2010 to 31.08.2023, from the petitioner.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 29.02.2008 and currently he is holding the post of Head Clerk at Sub Court, Ariyalur. After a long time, the internal audit wing of the High Court had found inadmissible promotional increment to the petitioner because of the wrong fixation of salary and ordered to recover a sum of Rs.3,59,847/- being excess pay and allowance paid to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Unjust 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.

4. However, 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.

5. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also enumerated the legal principles in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih 2015 4 SCC 334 and held as hereunder:

"

8.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 arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

6. In 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 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.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 25-06-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order KST To

1. The Registrar General High Court of Judicature, Madras-104.

2. The Principal District Judge Ariyalur.

3. Additional Sub Judge Ariyalur.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.

AND R.SAKTHIVEL J.

KST AND WMP NO. 26356 OF 2026 25-06-2026