Partly allowed¶48

T.Anees Sulthana v. The Registrar General

Madras HC9 Jul 2026WP/3975/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery of excess pay and allowances; erroneous pay fixation; internal audit objection; promotional increment on redeployment; Assistant to Bench Clerk Grade III; Head Clerk; no misrepresentation by employee; error by Establishment; extreme hardship; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 principles; repayment within 12 weeks; pay revision confirmed; Madras High Court; WP No. 3975 of 2026; neutral citation 2026:MHC:2871.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Office Order No. 81/2025 dated 26.11.2025 set aside with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone; revised pay fixation pursuant to the audit objection confirmed; excess amount already recovered directed to be re-paid to the petitioner within 12 weeks; connected miscellaneous petition, if any, closed; no costs. ¶48

T.Anees Sulthana Vs The Registrar General — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the Office Order No.81/2025 dated 26.11.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent directing recovery of excess pay and allowances of Rs. 2,63,972/- from the petitioner, following an internal audit objection to her promotional increment, is sustainable in law.

¶14

Court's answer

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

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The respondents were unable to establish any misrepresentation on the part of the employee during fixation of pay; the error was committed by the Establishment, and the petitioner cannot be penalised for it after a lapse of many years.

¶28

Key takeaways

Recovery of excess salary after such a length of time would result in extreme hardship to the employee.ratio¶33
The revision of pay effected pursuant to the audit objection is confirmed, but the recovery of excess pay alone is set aside; any excess amount already recovered is directed to be re-paid to the petitioner within 12 weeks, and the impugned Office Order No. 81/2025 dated 26.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent stands set aside with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar, JJ.) - WP No. 3975 of 2026 - Recovery of excess pay - Petitioner, a Head Clerk promoted from Assistant to Bench Clerk Grade III with a sanctioned promotional increment, was served with Office Order No. 81/2025 dated 26.11.2025 by the District Munsif, Sankarapuram directing recovery of Rs. 2,63,972/- as excess pay and allowances after the Internal Audit Wing of the High Court held the increment on redeployment inadmissible - Court confirms the revised pay fixation but holds the recovery impermissible: no misrepresentation by the employee was established, the error was committed by the Establishment, and recovery after a lapse of many years would cause extreme hardship, consistent with the principles summarised in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 - recovery of excess pay set aside; amount already recovered to be re-paid within 12 weeks - Writ petition partly allowed.

¶1

2026:MHC:2871

¶2

WP No. 3975 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 09-07-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR WP No. 3975 of 2026

T.Anees Sulthana

..Petitioner(s)

The Registrar General, High Court Madras 104

¶12

The District Munsif Sankarapuram, Kallakurichi District

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

To call for the records of the proceedings in Office Order No. 81/ 2025 dated 26.11.2025 issued by 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs. 2,63,972/- from petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to the petitioner.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ajay Kanna for Mr.S.Tamilselvan For Respondent(s): Mr. M.T. Arunan

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the Office order

¶19

No.81/2025 dated 26.11.2025 passed by 2^nd respondent for recovery of

¶20

excess pay and allowance from petitioner and consequently direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount and pass further orders as

¶21

Page1 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

2026:MHC:2871

¶24

WP No. 3975 of 2026

¶25

the court deems fit and proper .

¶26

The petitioner is now working as Head Clerk under the 2^nd Respondent and was promoted from the post of Assistant to Bench Clerk Grade III and was sanctioned promotional increment. Writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceedings in Office Order No.81/2025 dated 26.11.2025, that pursuant to the Internal Audit Wing of the High Court, the sanction of one increment on redeployment to the post of Bench Clerk Grade-III from the post of Assistant was held inadmissible. 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 her salary.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Page2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

2026:MHC:2871

¶32

WP No. 3975 of 2026

¶33

length of time would result in extreme hardship to the employee.

¶34

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:

¶35

“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:

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee

¶40

12015 4 SCC 334

¶41

__________ Page3 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

2026:MHC:2871

¶44

WP No. 3975 of 2026

¶45

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.

¶46

(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.

¶47

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 order made in Office order No. 81/2025 dated 26.11.2025 passed by 2^nd respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.

¶48