K.Govindaraj Vs the Registrar General

To call for the records in connection with proceedings in R.O.C. No.NIL / 2025 dated 26/03/2025 of 3^rd respondent the Sub-Judge, Uthangariai, Krishnagiri District and quash the same with regard to petitioner salary recovery of Rs.1900 / - in 1 to 39 installments and Rs.640/- in 40th installments from 21/03//2025 totally Rs.74,740 (Rupees Seventy Four Thousand and Seven Hundred and Forty Only ) from the petitioner salary and consequently, direct the respondents to return the amount if any already deducted from the petitioner and thus render justice.

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Thiruvengadam

¶20

For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Sunil Kumar For R1 To R3 No appearance for R4

¶21

Page1 of 6

¶22

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

2026:MHC:2820

WP No. 37737 of 2025

ORDER

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

¶27

Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the impugned proceeding

¶28

in R.O.C No.NIL/2025 dated 26.03.2025 passed by 3rd respondent for

¶29

recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.74,740/- from petitioner and direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount to petitioner.

¶30

The petitioner was initially appointed as Night Watchman and was later transferred as Office Assistant. The petitioner was sanctioned one promotional increment for his transfer from Night Watchman to Office Assistant. The writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceeding in R.O.C No.NIL/2025 dated 26.03.2025, that pursuant to the internal audit wing of the High Court, the grant of sanction of one increment for his promotion from the post of Night Watchman to Office Assistant was held inadmissible to the petitioner. 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 his salary.

¶31

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.

¶32

__________ Page2 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

2026:MHC:2820

¶35

WP No. 37737 of 2025

¶36

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.

¶37

In 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:

¶38

“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:

¶39

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

¶40

(ii)Recovery from the retired employees, or

¶41

12015 4 SCC 334

¶42

__________ Page3 of 6

¶43

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

¶44

2026:MHC:2820

¶45

WP No. 37737 of 2025

¶46

the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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.

¶49

(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.

¶50

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, 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 proceeding in R.O.C No.NIL/2025 dated 26.03.2025 passed by 3rd respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.

¶51

__________ Page4 of 6

¶52

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

¶53

2026:MHC:2820

¶54

WP No. 37737 of 2025

¶55