Padma M Vs The Additional Registrar General

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15202 of 2026 & etc., batch cases

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.06.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.P(MD)Nos.15202, 15374, 15529, 15732, 15747, 15842, 15851, 15905, 15907, 15908, 10870, 10871, 10872, 10873, 10875, 12977, 13601 & 12379 of 2026 (18 cases)

¶7

and

¶8

W.M.P(MD)Nos.11384, 11385, 11523, 11524, 11626, 11811, 11812, 11853, 11867, 11921, 11925, 11929, 11932, 8469, 8470, 8498, 8499, 8521, 8522, 8482, 8484, 8472, 8474, 9722, 10123, 10124, 9365 & 9367 of 2026

¶9

W.P(MD)No.15202 of 2026 :

M.Padma

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Additional Registrar General, Madras High Court - Madurai Bench, Madurai.

¶14

2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶15

1/9

¶16

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

¶17

3.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Account General, Chennai.

¶18

W.P(MD)No.15202 of 2026 & etc., batch cases

¶19

4.The Internal Audit Wing, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, Madurai.

¶20

5.The Treasury Officer, Ramanathapuram District.

¶21

6.The Sub-Treasury Officer, Rameshwaram. ... Respondents

¶22

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order No.12 of 2025 dated 06.11.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to recover the sum of Rs.41,118/from the petitioner's salary and refund the amount already recovered from petitioner till date within a stipulated period of time.

¶23

For Petitioner : Ms.V.Sundari For Respondents : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athif (R1, R2 & R4) : Mr.S.Venkatesh (R3, R5 & R6) for State

¶24

2/9

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(MD)No.15202 of 2026 & etc., batch cases

¶27

COMMON ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

Challenging the orders of re-fixation and the consequential

¶30

recovery, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions.

¶31

2.Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the

¶32

same and the facts are also identical, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

¶33

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

¶34

submit that the grievance of the petitioners is confined only to the recovery

¶35

ordered pursuant to the re-fixation of pay and that they are not challenging the orders of re-fixation.

¶36

4.The said submission is placed on record.

¶37

3/9

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.15202 of 2026 & etc., batch cases

¶40

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would

¶41

contend that a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.(MD) No.14802 of 2020, dated 28.04.2026 [M. Kayambu v. The District Munsif and Others] , has taken a different view and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for.

¶42

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶43

7.Admittedly, the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 , held that where excess payment has been made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating pay or allowances, or on account of an erroneous interpretation of a rule or order, recovery of such excess payment cannot ordinarily be effected from the employee.

¶44

4/9

¶45

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

¶46

W.P(MD)No.15202 of 2026 & etc., batch cases

¶47

8.In the decision relied upon by the respondents, the Division

¶48

Bench observed that the writ petitioner therein was originally in the pay band of Rs.3,050-4,900 and upon conferment of Selection Grade, became entitled to additional increments. While the upper limit of the pay band remained unchanged, the petitioner's basic pay ought to have been revised from Rs.3,050/- to Rs.3,200/-. However, his pay band was erroneously fixed at Rs.4,000-6,000. It was in those peculiar facts and circumstances that the Division Bench declined to interfere.

¶49

9.In the present case, the issue relates to the grant of an increment based on the statutory provisions prevailing at the relevant point of time. It appears that an additional increment was granted under the applicable rules and was subsequently treated as excess in view of the implementation of the recommendations of the 7 th Pay Commission. Thus, the alleged excess payment arose solely on account of an error committed by the employer in fixation of pay and not due to any misrepresentation or fault on the part of the petitioners.

¶50

5/9

¶51

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

¶52

W.P(MD)No.15202 of 2026 & etc., batch cases

¶53

10.Admittedly, the petitioners belong to Group 'C' and Group 'D' service categories in the Judicial Department, as the case may be. It is well settled, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , that recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) is impermissible in law. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The respondents have already re-fixed the pay of the petitioners, and the petitioners have no grievance insofar as such re-fixation is concerned. Their challenge is confined only to the recovery ordered pursuant thereto.

¶54

11.In view of the above, the impugned proceedings are quashed insofar as they relate to recovery. If any amount has already been recovered from the petitioners pursuant to the impugned proceedings, the same shall be refunded to them.

¶55

6/9

¶56

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

¶57

W.P(MD)No.15202 of 2026 & etc., batch cases

¶58

12.With the above direction, these Writ Petitions stand disposed

¶59

of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶60

[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 15.06.2026

¶61

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps

¶62

Note: Registry is directed to type full cause title, while issuing this order.

¶63

7/9

¶64

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

¶65

W.P(MD)No.15202 of 2026 & etc., batch cases

¶66

To

¶67

1.The Additional Registrar General, Madras High Court - Madurai Bench, Madurai.

¶68

2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶69

3.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Account General, Chennai.

¶70

4.The Internal Audit Wing, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, Madurai.

¶71

5.The Treasury Officer, Ramanathapuram District.

¶72

6.The Sub-Treasury Officer, Rameshwaram.

¶73

8/9

¶74

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

¶75

W.P(MD)No.15202 of 2026 & etc., batch cases

¶76

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶77

ps

¶78

W.P(MD)Nos.15202, 15374, 15529, 15732, 15747, 15842, 15851, 15905, 15907, 15908, 10870, 10875, 10871, 10872, 10873, 12977, 13601 & 12379 of 2026 (18 cases)

¶79

DATED : 15.06.2026

¶80

9/9

¶81

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

Padma M v. The Additional Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padma M v. The Additional Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chief Educational Officer, Vs G.Velladurai

V.Nagappan Vs The District Collector

B. Moorthy Vs THe District Registrar

Sri Aadhi Muthu Mariamman Temple Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government

Jesunathan Vs The District Collector

The Director of Elementary Education Vs J. George Sahayaraj