Madras High Court
K.Narayanaswamy vs The Chief Engineer (Personnel) on 1 February, 2021
W.P.No.35372 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.35372 of 2007
K.Narayanaswamy ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer
VEDC/Villupuram Adm.1
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Executive Engineer O&M
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tindivanam, Tindivanam – 604 001. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a
Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Third Respondent culminated in the
impugned Memo No. 676/EE/ O & M/ TDM/Ni.U.A./Nimo/Nee.2/Ka/K/AA/07 dated
24.10.2007 of the third respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sivam Sivanandaraj
For Respondents : Mr.Fakkir Mohideen
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is to to call for the records of the Third
Respondent culminated in the impugned Memo No. 676/EE/ O & M/
TDM/Ni.U.A./Nimo/Nee.2/Ka/K/AA/07 dated 24.10.2007 of the third respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.35372 of 2007
2. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board, against whom an order of recovery has been made by the impugned order
dated 24.10.2007. In the said order, alleging that excess pay has been paid
between the period 03.06.1992 to 30.06.2007, a sum of Rs.24,183/- was sought to
be recovered. As against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Though arguments and counter arguments have been made by both sides
with regard to the sustainability and non-sustainability of the recovery, this Court
feels that, the situation now confronted in this case can fit in at least one of the four
situations that are mentioned by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment
reported in 2014 (8) S.C.C.833 “State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer)”, wherein it was held as follows.
“12. 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
herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following
few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be
impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV
service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D'service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due
to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.35372 of 2007
(iii) Recovery from 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 be iniquitous or harsh or
arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable
balance of the employer's right to recover.”
4. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the recovery is sought for the
amount which was said to have been made as an excess payment allegedly for the
period from 03.06.1992 to 30.06.2007.
5.In this context, it is to be noted that, after nearly about 15 years the
impugned order has been passed seeking recovery of the amount as if that has
been paid excessively. The third situation that has been mentioned in the
judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reads that, recovery from employees,
when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years,
before the order of recovery is issued, the employer is precluded from making any
recovery. Therefore, this Court feels that, the situation now confronted in the
present case can very well fit in the third situation mentioned by the Honourable
Supreme Court. Therefore, the respondents herein are not entitled to claim the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.35372 of 2007
amount from the petitioner. Therefore, on that ground itself, the impugned order
is not sustainable and accordingly the same is liable to be quashed.
6. In the result, the impugned order dated 24.10.2007 is hereby quashed.
Consequently, the recovery sought for to the extent of Rs.24,183/- which was
admittedly recovered already from the petitioner, as the petitioner was working till
2013 till he attained superannuation, shall be refunded to the petitioner with
nominal interest of 6% per annum from the date it was recovered. With the above
directions, this writ petition is allowed. No costs.
01.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
KST
To
1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel)
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer
VEDC/Villupuram Adm.1
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Executive Engineer O&M
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Tindivanam, Tindivanam – 604 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.35372 of 2007
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
KST
W.P.No.35372 of 2007
01.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
