D.M.Ravikumar Vs the Registrar General

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 6^th respondent in connection with the proceedings in Proc.No.88/2021 dated 20.01.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to continue to pay at the existing fixation of pay and not to recover the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner.

¶21

For Petitioner: Mr.A.Sakthivel For Respondents: Mr.M.T.Arunan – for R1, R3 and R6 Ms.V.Kanchana for Mr.V.Vijay Shankar for R4 No appearance – for R2 and R5

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

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

¶24

The Writ Petition has been filed to set aside the order of the 6^th respondent dated 20.01.2021 in respect of recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.9,33,885/- for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2006 and from 01.02.2011 to 30.11.2020 from the petitioner.

¶25

Petitioner was initially appointed as Copyist in the year 1992 and retired from services voluntarily on 09.11.2022. .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.9,33,885/- being excess pay and allowance paid to the petitioner.

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.43798 of 2025

¶29

Aggrieved by the said order of the 6^th respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

“18.It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where

¶35

12015 4 SCC 334

¶36

__________ Page 3 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.43798 of 2025

¶39

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:

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(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.

¶43

(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.

¶44

(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.”

¶45

In view of the facts and circumstances, the revision of pay effected

¶46

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

¶47

__________ Page 4 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.43798 of 2025

¶50

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned

¶51

order is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.

¶52