Allowed¶45

R.Sivanantham, v. The Registrar General

Madras HC9 Jun 2026WP(MD)/15103/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery of excess salary payment quashed; Head Clerk; audit objection; excess payment Rs.1,79,605/- (01.10.2017-30.11.2025); employer-error recovery impermissible absent employee misrepresentation; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 guidelines applied; pay fixation correction permitted; W.P.(MD)No.15103 of 2026; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; decided 09.06.2026; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery order dated 11.12.2025 quashed in respect of the recovery alone; pay fixation may be corrected in accordance with the Government Orders and the Pay Rules in force; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.(MD)No.11313 of 2026) closed. ¶45

R.Sivanantham, Vs The Registrar General — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether recovery of the excess payment of Rs.1,79,605/- made to the petitioner (a serving Head Clerk) owing to an employer-side error, without any misrepresentation by the employee, is legally permissible.

¶30

Court's answer

Correction of errors is certainly permissible; if any error took place regarding fixation of pay, the same can be corrected and the revised pay shall be paid.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Recovery cannot be imposed where the amount was paid to the employee at the instance of the employer, there being no misrepresentation on the part of the employee nor grant at the employee's instance.

¶30

Key takeaways

In view of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, the recovery imposed on the writ petitioner is untenable.ratio¶42
The order passed by the second respondent dated 11.12.2025 is quashed in respect of the recovery alone; fixation of pay can be corrected in accordance with the Government Orders and the Pay Rules in force.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), Division Bench of N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman, JJ. (order by N. Sathish Kumar, J.), allowed W.P.(MD)No.15103 of 2026 filed under Article 226 challenging recovery proceedings dated 11.12.2025 directing recovery of Rs.1,79,605/- paid in excess to a serving Head Clerk from 01.10.2017 to 30.11.2025 following an audit objection, in 27 monthly installments of Rs.6,500/- after a first installment of Rs.4,105/-. The Court held that while correction of errors in pay fixation is permissible, recovery cannot be imposed where the excess was paid at the instance of the employer without any misrepresentation by the employee, relying on the guidelines in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334. The impugned order was quashed in respect of the recovery alone, with liberty to correct pay fixation per the Government Orders and Pay Rules in force; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 09.06.2026

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.15103 of 2026

¶8

and W.M.P.(MD)No.11313 of 2026

R.Sivanantham

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Chennai-104.

¶13

2.The Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶14

3.The Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi. ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the 3rd Respondent's order No.56 dated 11.12.2025 directing the recovery of excess amount of Rs.1,79,605/- paid for the period from 01.10.2017 to 30.11.2025 at Rs.6,500/- in 27 equal monthly installments after recovering the amount of Rs.4,105/- as 1st Installment

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

in the month of December 2025 and to quash the same as illegal and nonest order and direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to pay the same salary which is being drawn by the petitioner till the date of impugned order.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman Standing Counsel ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶21

The order of recovery issued against the writ petitioner vide

¶22

proceedings dated 11.12.2025 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶23

2.Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice

¶24

for the respondents.

¶25

3.By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶26

4.The writ petitioner is working as a Head Clerk. Whileso, proceedings dated 11.12.2025 was issued by the competent authority based on an audit objection stating that an excess amount of

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

Rs.1,79,605/- had been paid to the petitioner during service and directing recovery of the said amount.

¶30

5.This being the factual position, this Court is of an opinion that absolutely there is no issue in respect of correcting the errors took place. In other words, the correction of errors are certainly permissible. However, in respect of recovery, the same cannot be imposed when it was paid to the employee at the instance of the employer. If any error took place regarding the fixation of pay, the same can be corrected and the revised pay shall be paid. However, the amount already paid shall not be recovered in view of the fact that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the employee nor it was granted at the instance of the employee.

¶31

6.In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also enumerated the legal principles in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334 in paragraph No. 18 of the judgment is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder:-

¶32

“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

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise 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 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.

¶40

(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.”

¶41

In view of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme

¶42

Court, the recovery imposed on the writ petitioner is untenable.

¶43

4/6

¶44

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

¶45

8.In view of the above, the order impugned in this writ petition passed by the second respondent dated 11.12.2025 is quashed in respect of the recovery alone. Fixation of pay can be corrected in accordance with the Government Orders and the Pay Rules in force. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶46

[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 09.06.2026

¶47

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta To

¶48