Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, V. Thangadurai, was working as a Translator under the second respondent, the Principal District Judge, Kallakurichi, and later promoted from Assistant to Bench Clerk Grade III, joining on 14.12.2013. He was sanctioned a promotional increment at 3% with effect from 01.04.2014, and his pay was fixed at Rs.11730+2800 Grade Pay. After a considerable period, an audit report by the first respondent, the Registrar General of the High Court of Madras, directed that the increment was inadmissible, being on transfer from Assistant to Bench Clerk Grade III, and thus, the excess pay and allowances paid from 01.04.2014 to 30.09.2025, amounting to Rs.2,44,494/-, were to be recovered. Consequently, the second respondent issued office order No.188/2025 dated 16.10.2025 for recovery. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the recovery order and direct refund of any recovered amount. The core legal issue was whether recovery of excess pay, in the absence of misrepresentation by the employee and after a long lapse of time, is permissible. The petitioner contended that there was no misrepresentation on his part; the error was committed by the establishment, and recovery after many years would cause extreme hardship. The respondents argued that unjust gain of public money is impermissible and that authorities are empowered to rectify pay fixation 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 is impermissible when an employee is not at fault and recovery would be harsh, particularly for Group C employees like the petitioner, and where excess payment has been made for over five years before the recovery order. The court confirmed the pay revision but set aside the recovery order, directing that any excess amount already recovered be re-paid to the petitioner within twelve weeks. The writ petition was partly allowed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Pay - Principles Governing Recovery - Constitution of India, Article 226; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 - The petitioner, a Bench Clerk Grade III, challenged recovery of Rs.2,44,494/- as excess pay for the period 01.04.2014 to 30.09.2025, arising from an erroneous increment sanctioned on his promotion. The High Court held that while public money unjustly gained may be recovered, recovery is impermissible when there is no misrepresentation by the employee and it causes extreme hardship, especially after over five years. The Supreme Court's principles in Rafiq Masih were applied, including that recovery from Group C employees is impermissible when excess payment exceeds five years before the recovery order. Held that the pay revision is confirmed, but the recovery order is set aside, and any recovered amount must be refunded within 12 weeks. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the recovery of excess pay and allowances from the petitioner, after a long period and in the absence of any misrepresentation on his part, is permissible under law
Final Decision
Writ Petition partly allowed. The revision of pay effected is confirmed, but the recovery of excess pay alone is set aside. Any excess amount recovered to be re-paid within 12 weeks. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Unjust gain of public money impermissible under law
- authorities competent to rectify errors in pay fixation
- recovery of excess salary impermissible if no misrepresentation by employee and after long period causing hardship
- recovery from Class III/IV employees impermissible when excess payment made for over five years before recovery order
- recovery set aside if iniquitous or harsh
