V.Chellammal vs The Registrar General
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 34338 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP No. 34338 of 2026
V.Chellammal
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Registrar General,
High Court, Madras-104.
2. The Principal District Munsif,
Tirukoilur, Kallakurichi District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the proceedings in
office order No.103 /2026 dated 08.06.2026 issued by 2nd respondent for
recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,76,087/- from petitioner and
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to remit back the
recovered amount to the petitioner.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S. TAMILSELVAN
For Respondent(s): MR.HARSH VARTHAN
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the proceedings
in office order No.103 /2026 dated 08.06.2026 issued by the second
respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,76,087/- from
petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
remit back the recovered amount to the petitioner.
__________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 05:36:08 pm )
WP No. 34338 of 2026
2.The petitioner was working as a Head Clerk under the second
respondent and attained superannuation on 31.01.2026. She was promoted
from the post of Assistant to Bench Clerk Grade III and joined duty on
14.12.2013, pursuant to which a promotional increment of 3% was sanctioned
and her pay was fixed accordingly. Subsequently, the first respondent, based
on an audit report, directed recovery of the alleged excess payment on the
ground that the post of Bench Clerk Grade III was created by redeployment of
Assistants and was not a transfer post. Accordingly, the second respondent
issued Office Order No.103 of 2026 dated 08.06.2026, directing the recovery
of Rs.2,76,087/- from the petitioner’s pensionary benefits for the period from
14.12.2013 to 31.01.2026 and the said amount has been recovered from the
petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. 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.
4. 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 petitioners cannot be
__________
Page 2 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 05:36:08 pm )
WP No. 34338 of 2026
penalised after a lapse of many years. Recovery of excess salary at this
length of time would result in extreme hardship to the employee.
5. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also enumerated
1
the legal principles in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and held
as hereunder:
“ 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:
(i) Recovery from the employees
belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or
Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from the retired employees,
or the employees who are due to retire within
one year, of the order of recovery.
(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.
(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.
(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
1
2015 4 SCC 334
__________
Page 3 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 05:36:08 pm )
WP No. 34338 of 2026
far outweigh the equitable balance of the
employer's right to recover.”
6. 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 petitioners within a period of 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned
order is set aside, with reference to the recovery of excess salary alone.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands partly allowed. No costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.)
31-08-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SLI
To
1.The Registrar General,
High Court, Madras-104.
2.The Principal District Munsif,
Tirukoilur, Kallakurichi District.
__________
Page 4 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 05:36:08 pm )
WP No. 34338 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J.
SLI
WP No. 34338 of 2026
31-08-2026
__________
Page 5 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 05:36:08 pm )