A.KAVITHA vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

WP No. 34018 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 34018 of 2026
A.Kavitha
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Registrar General
High Court Of Madras,
Chennai- 600 104.
2. The Principal District Judge
The Principal District Court,
Dharmapuri.
3. The Special Sub Judge
The Special Subordinate Court (MACT),
Dharmapuri.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the
recovery notice dated 02.06.2026 issued by the third respondent and quash
the same as is in violation of Constitutional law, statutory rule, unjust,
unwarranted and uncalled for.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Nagarajan
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Giridharan
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The writ petitioner admittedly is serving as Group – B employee. She
has been granted fixation of pay based on the Pay Rules and Government
__________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 05:36:08 pm )

WP No. 34018 of 2026
Orders in force. Subsequently, the internal Audit Party of this Court found that
fixation had been done in respect of the writ petitioner is erroneous and not in
accordance with Pay Rules and Government Orders in force. Thus, an order
of re-fixation was directed to be carried out and excess salary paid to the
employee was directed to be recovered. Pertinently, over and above the
eligibility, one additional increment was sanctioned to the employee, which
was construed as excess pay granted.
2.The learned counsel for the respondents is unable to establish
that there was any misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioner nor she
has executed any letter of undertaking to repay the excess pay, if any,
identified after re-fixation. In the absence of anyone of the above grounds, the
recovery, at this length of time, cannot be sustained. Recovery of excess
increment paid after a prolonged period would result in hardship.
3.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 SCC 334 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
__________
Page 2 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 05:36:08 pm )

WP No. 34018 of 2026
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
far outweigh the equitable balance of the
employer's right to recover.”
4.The recovery of excess salary alone is set aside and the
re-fixation done by the authorities, in accordance with Pay Rules and
Government Orders, are confirmed. The re-fixation in all other respects are
__________
Page 3 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 05:36:08 pm )

WP No. 34018 of 2026
also confirmed. The excess salary, if any recovered already, from the writ
petitioner, the said recovered amount alone is directed to be refunded within a
period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5.With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed in part. No
costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.)
27-08-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SLI
To
1.The Registrar General
High Court Of Madras,
Chennai- 600 104.
2.The Principal District Judge
The Principal District Court,
Dharmapuri.
3.The Special Sub Judge
The Special Subordinate Court (MACT),
Dharmapuri.
__________
Page 4 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 05:36:08 pm )

WP No. 34018 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
SLI
WP No. 34018 of 2026
27-08-2026
__________
Page 5 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/09/2026 05:36:08 pm )