M.Natarjan, Vs The Registrar General

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 05.12.2025 in Proceedings vide R.O.C.No.13318/2025 passed by the 3rd Respondent, and to quash the same as illegal and

¶21

Page1 of 7

¶22

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

¶23

2026:MHC:2701

¶24

WP.No.5842 of 2026

¶25

consequently direct the respondents to continue to pay at the existing fixation of pay and not to recover the alleged excess amount paid to the Petitioner and to pass

¶26

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D. Manimaran For Respondent(s): Mr. A. Durai Easwer For R 1, 3 & 4 Mr. T. Ravikumar for R5 No appearance for R2 & 6

¶27

ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

Writ on hand has been instituted to set aside the impugned proceeding in R.O.C No.13318/2025 dated 05.12.2025 passed by 3rd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,18,916/- from petitioner and direct the respondents to continue the pay at existing fixation of pay and to remit back the recovered amount to petitioner.

¶30

The petitioner was initially appointed as Night Watchman on 17.04.2007, later transferred as Office Assistant on 02.05.2011 and was promoted as Record Clerk on 01.11.2019. The petitioner was sanctioned one promotional increment for his transfer from Night Watchman to Office Assistant. The writ petitioner was informed through impugned proceedings in R.O.C No.13318/2025 dated 05.12.2025, that pursuant to the internal audit

¶31

wing of the High Court, the grant of sanction of one increment was held inadmissible to the petitioner as Class IV Employees may be appointed to Class III posts only by way of transfer of service and not by promotion, even

¶32

Page2 of 7

¶33

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

¶34

2026:MHC:2701

¶35

WP.No.5842 of 2026

¶36

though the scale of pay for the above posts are identical. 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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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:

¶40

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

¶41

12015 4 SCC 334

¶42

Page3 of 7

¶43

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

¶44

2026:MHC:2701

¶45

WP.No.5842 of 2026

¶46

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:

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

(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.

¶50

(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.

¶51

(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.

¶52

__________ Page4 of 7

¶53

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

¶54

2026:MHC:2701

¶55

WP.No.5842 of 2026

¶56

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 proceeding in R.O.C No.13318/2025 dated 05.12.2025 passed by 3rd respondent is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.

¶57