V. Dharmarajan vs The Accountant General (A & E)
2026 Latest Caselaw 913 Ker

Kerala High Court

V. Dharmarajan vs The Accountant General (A & E) on 31 January, 2026

W.A.No.3109 of 2025

                                1
                                                  2026:KER:6228

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                    &

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

   SATURDAY, THE 31ST    DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 11TH MAGHA, 1947

                        WA NO. 3109 OF 2025

      (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2025 IN WP(C) NO.4029
OF 2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
APPELLANT:

             V. DHARMARAJAN,
             AGED 67 YEARS
             S/O LATE NARAYANAN NAIR 'NIRMAL', VATTIPROM,
             MANGATTIDAM (P.O), KUTHUPARAMBA (VIA), KANNUR
             DISTRICT, PIN - 670643


             BY ADVS.
             SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
             SHRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
             SMT.CISSY MATHEWS
             SHRI.GREGORY PRINCE MYLADI


RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E),
             KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

     2       THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERRY,
             THALASSERRY, KNNUR, PIN - 679532

     3       THE REGISTRAR,
             DISTRICT JUDICIARY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031

     4       STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE FINANCE
             DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
             695001
 W.A.No.3109 of 2025

                                 2
                                                      2026:KER:6228

                  ADV.SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE (GP)
             BY ADV SHRI.V.A.MUHAMMED(R2 & R3)


      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD       ON 23.01.2026,
THE COURT ON     31.1.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.3109 of 2025

                                        3
                                                                2026:KER:6228

                                    JUDGMENT

P.V. Balakrishnan, J.

This intra court appeal is filed by the

petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4029 of 2015 challenging the

judgment dated 27.08.2025 passed by the learned Single

Judge, solely on the ground that interest for the

amount of Rs.59,550/- which was ordered to be refunded

to the writ petitioner, has not been granted.

2. The facts, which are necessary for the

disposal of this appeal, are as follows;

The appellant filed the writ petition

challenging Exts.P3, P4, P7, P10, P14 and P18 orders

wherein the pay of the appellant was

regularised/refixed, after noticing a mistake

committed earlier during pay fixation and ordering

recovery of the excess amount paid. The learned Single

Judge, after considering the materials on record and

hearing both sides, declined to grant the relief of

quashment of Exts.P3, P4, P7, P10, P14 and P18 orders,

after finding that there is no error in the action

2026:KER:6228

taken by the CJM for refixing the pay of the appellant

and getting his pensionary benefits revised on the

basis of the same. But, while ordering so, the learned

Single Judge, after considering the decision of the

Apex court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq

Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334], found that

the recovery effected was not justified and hence,

directed the respondents to refund the amount of

Rs.59,550/-, recovered from the gratuity of the

appellant, within a time frame. It is challenging

the non-granting of interest for the said amount, this

appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner.

3. Heard Adv.Jawahar Jose, the learned

counsel for the appellant, Adv.P.A.Harish, the learned

Senior Government Pleader and Adv.V.A.Mohammed, the

learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant

contended that the appellant who has been deprived of

the use of his money to which he is legitimately

entitled, has a right to be compensated for the

deprivation and hence, is entitled for interest. He

2026:KER:6228

also submitted that the amount was recovered from the

appellant as early as on 25.02.2013, without

conducting any departmental enquiry or finding the

appellant guilty of misconduct and therefore, the

respondents are liable to refund the amount with

interest. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court

in Dr.Poornima Advani and another v. Government of NCT

and another [(2025) 7 SCC 269] to contend that equity

also demands that the appellant must be compensated

for the deprivation of the money which he was

legitimately entitled on his date of retirement.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for

respondents 2 and 3 supported the impugned judgment

and contended that there are no grounds to interfere

with the same. They argued that the learned Single

Judge has found that there was no error in

regularising the pay of the appellant, since there was

a wrong fixation of pay earlier and therefore, it is

not a case where the appellant can be stated as a

person legally entitled to the money. They further

contended that it is based on the principles laid down

2026:KER:6228

by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), the

recovery has been found vitiated and not because of

the fact that the pay fixation done in 2009 was found

to be legal. Hence, they submitted that the appellant

is not entitled for any interest.

6. On an anxious consideration of the rival

submissions and materials on record, we find no merit

in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

appellant. In the instant case, as stated earlier,

even though the appellant had sought quashment of

Exts.P3, P4, P7, P10, P14 and P18 orders, the learned

Single Judge did not grant the said relief. On the

other hand, the learned Single Judge has categorically

found that the afore orders do not suffer from any

error and that the subsequent refixation is proper. It

was also found that the earlier pay fixation of the

appellant was wrong. It can thus be seen that the

amount recovered is the benefit which the appellant

has availed on the basis of a wrong fixation of pay.

If so, it cannot be stated that the amount which was

withheld and now ordered to be refunded, is one which

2026:KER:6228

the appellant was lawfully entitled to at the time of

receiving it. The impugned judgment shows that it is

only by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in

Rafiq Masih's case (supra), by considering the fact

that the appellant is an employee belonging to a lower

category and there was three years' delay in

correcting the mistake, the learned Single Judge

directed the respondents to refund the amount

recovered from the appellant. Therefore, considering

all the afore facts, we are of the view that equities

are not in favour of the appellant entitling him to

interest, as sought for.

Ergo, we find no merit in this writ appeal and the

same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, JUDGE

Sd/-

P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE scl