Partly allowed¶47

V.Malliga v. The Registrar General

Madras HC2 Jun 2026WP/19032/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery of excess pay and allowances; erroneous pay fixation; Personal Pay @ 5%; retired/superannuated Class employee; no misrepresentation by employee; extreme hardship; audit objection; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 situations (ii) and (iii); refund within 12 weeks; Article 226 writ of certiorarified mandamus; Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition partly allowed: recovery of excess pay set aside while revised pay fixation pursuant to the audit objection is confirmed; excess amount already recovered to be re-paid to the petitioner within 12 weeks; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; no costs. ¶47

V.Malliga Vs The Registrar General — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether Office Order No.193/2025 dated 19/12/2025 directing recovery of excess pay and allowances of Rs.2,78,459/- from the retired petitioner is legally sustainable. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Unjust gain of public money is impermissible under law; the authorities are empowered to rectify errors in pay fixation and grant the correct pay, so the revised pay fixation granted by the respondents in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders shall continue.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The respondents were unable to establish any misrepresentation by the employee during pay fixation; the error was committed by the Establishment, the petitioner cannot be penalised after a lapse of many years, and recovery of excess salary at that length of time would cause extreme hardship.

¶30

Key takeaways

Applying the principles in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, the revision of pay effected pursuant to the Audit Objection is confirmed, but the recovery of excess pay alone is set aside, and the impugned order is set aside with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.ratio¶43
The excess amount recovered on account of the impugned order is directed to be re-paid to the petitioner within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (S.M.Subramaniam J., N.Senthilkumar J.), WP No. 19032 of 2026, decided 02-06-2026: The petitioner, a Special Grade Senior Bailiff who attained superannuation, had been wrongly granted Personal Pay @ 5% from 17.03.1999 to 28.02.2025. Acting on an audit report, the I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam issued Office Order No.193/2025 dated 19/12/2025 directing recovery of Rs.2,78,459/- from her retirement benefits. Holding that unjust gain of public money is impermissible and that authorities may rectify pay-fixation errors, the Court confirmed the revised pay fixation, but following State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, held that in the absence of misrepresentation by the employee, an error committed by the Establishment cannot be visited on her after many years, and recovery at that distance of time would cause extreme hardship. The recovery alone was set aside, with a direction to refund the amount recovered within 12 weeks. Writ Petition partly allowed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 19032 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-06-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶8

WP No. 19032 of 2026 and WMP No. 20272 of 2026

¶9

V.Malliga

¶10

W/o.Veerappan, West Pondy Road, Near Seventh day School, Villupuram 605 108.

¶11

..Petitioner(s)

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

The I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam.

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorified Mandamus to call for the records of the proceeding in office order No.193/2025 dated 19/12/2025 issued by 2nd Respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,78,459 /- (Two Lakhs seventy Eight Thousand four Hundred and Fifty Nine Only) from Petitioner and quash the same.

¶17

WP	No. 19032 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):	Mr.S.Tamil Selvan
For Respondent(s):	Mr.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar for R1 & R2

¶18

__________ Page1 of 6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

WP No. 19032 of 2026

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶23

The Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent in office order No.193/2025 dated 19.12.2025 for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,78,459/- from the petitioner and quash the same.

¶24

The petitioner worked as a Special Grade Senior Bailiff under the 2^nd respondent. Earlier, she worked in District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur from 15.10.2020 to 01.08.2022. She was wrongly granted Personal Pay @ 5% with effect from 17.03.1999 to 28.02.2025 until she attain superannuation. The 1^st respondent, after a long time issued Audit Report and directed that since Personal Pay @ 5% for the post of Special Grade Senior Bailiff was wrongly granted to the petitioner, the excess amount paid as pay and allowances on pay fixation for the period from 17.03.1999 to 28.02.2025 amounting to Rs.2,78,459/-, the same has to be recovered from the petitioner. Since the petitioner attained superannuation, the said amount is directed to be adjusted and recovered from her retirement benefits.

¶25

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

¶26

Page2 of 6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

WP No. 19032 of 2026

¶29

Government Orders shall continue.

¶30

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.

¶31

In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also enumerated

¶32

the legal principles in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih¹ and held as hereunder:

¶33

“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:

¶34

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

¶35

12015 4 SCC 334

¶36

__________ Page3 of 6

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

WP No. 19032 of 2026

¶39

(ii)Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶40

(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.

¶41

(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.

¶42

(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.

¶43

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.

¶44

__________ Page4 of 6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

WP No. 19032 of 2026

¶47