Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by A. Shenbagavalli, an employee of the subordinate judiciary in Tamil Nadu, who was appointed as a Copyist on 13.01.1999 and regularised on 14.01.1999. She was later promoted and lastly served as Central Nazir in the Sub-Court at Palacode. While in service, an official memorandum dated 24.08.2023 was issued stating that her pay had been wrongly fixed and an excess amount of Rs.4,94,326/- had been paid from 14.01.1999 to 31.07.2023, which was sought to be recovered from her D.C.R.G. The petitioner gave her reply the same day, but the impugned proceedings confirming the recovery were passed on 24.08.2023 itself. She challenged the order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings and for a direction to continue the existing pay fixation and not to recover the excess amount. The core legal issue was whether recovery of excess salary, after a long lapse of time and in the absence of any misrepresentation by the employee, is permissible. The petitioner argued that the error was committed by the establishment and she could not be penalised after many years, as it would cause extreme hardship. The respondents contended that unjust gain of public money is impermissible and the authorities have the power to rectify pay errors. The court, relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, held that recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service, or retired employees, when the excess payment has been made for more than five years and there is no misrepresentation, is impermissible. The court confirmed the revision of pay to the correct scale but set aside the recovery portion of the impugned order, directing that any amount already recovered be refunded to the petitioner within twelve weeks. The writ petition was accordingly partly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Fixation and Recovery - Recovery of Excess Pay from Employee - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, confirming the revision of pay to correct scale, but setting aside the recovery of Rs.4,94,326/- from the petitioner's D.C.R.G. The petitioner was a Class III employee and the excess payment had continued from 1999 to 2023 without any misrepresentation on her part. The court applied the principles in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 that recovery from such employees after five years is impermissible as it would cause extreme hardship. Held, recovery alone is set aside, and any amount already recovered must be repaid within 12 weeks (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether recovery of excess salary after many years, due to employer's error and without employee misrepresentation, is legally permissible
Final Decision
Writ petition partly allowed. Revision of pay confirmed, but recovery of excess amount set aside. Excess amount, if any, recovered to be repaid within 12 weeks. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Unjust gain of public money impermissible
- employer may rectify pay errors
- recovery impermissible if no employee misrepresentation
- excess payment for over five years
- extreme hardship
- especially for Class III/IV or retired employees
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 9
S.M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar
Citation not available, 2026:MHC:2899
A. Sakthivel, N.K. Kanthimathi, R. Gouri, T. Ravi Kumar
The Registrar General, High Court of Madras and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of recovery of alleged excess pay and seeking continuation of existing pay fixation.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings dated 24.08.2023 of the 6th respondent and a direction to continue existing pay fixation without recovering the excess amount.
Filing Reason
The establishment committed an error in pay fixation leading to excess payment over many years; recovery was ordered from D.C.R.G. after a long lapse, causing hardship to the employee.
Previous Decisions
No prior court decisions; the impugned order of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Palacode, dated 24.08.2023, was the first formal proceeding.
Issues
Whether recovery of excess salary paid to a Class III employee due to employer's error and without any misrepresentation, after a period in excess of five years, is legally permissible?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that she is not responsible for the error and recovery after many years would result in extreme hardship.
Respondents argued that unjust gain of public money is impermissible and the establishment has the power to rectify pay errors.
Ratio Decidendi
Recovery of excess salary from a Class III or IV employee or a retired employee, when the excess payment was due to employer's error, persisted for more than five years, and no misrepresentation is attributable to the employee, is impermissible as per State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334. However, the employer is entitled to correctly fix the pay prospectively.
Judgment Excerpts
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.
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.
In view of the facts and circumstances, the revision of pay effected is confirmed, but the recovery of excess pay alone is set aside. The excess amount, if any, 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.
Procedural History
Petitioner appointed as Copyist on 13.01.1999, regularised on 14.01.1999; later promoted and served as Central Nazir. On 24.08.2023, an official memorandum issued alleging wrong pay fixation from 14.01.1999 to 31.07.2023 and an excess of Rs.4,94,326/-. Petitioner replied the same day, but the impugned proceeding dated 24.08.2023 ordered recovery from D.C.R.G. Petitioner filed WP No. 29799 of 2025 before the High Court of Madras. The High Court heard the matter and delivered this judgment on 15.07.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
