Madras High Court
Rhines Nalla Ratnam vs 3 The Zonal Officer on 23 February, 2022
W.P.No.2543 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.2.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.2543 of 2022
Rhines Nalla Ratnam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Commissioner,
Corporation Of Greater Chennai,
Ribbon Building, Chennai-600 003.
2 The Assistant Commissioner
(General Administration And Personnel)
Corporation Of Greater Chennai,
Ribbon Building, Chennai-600 003.
3 The Zonal Officer
Zone-15 Corporation Of Greater Chennai
Sholinganallur Chennai-600 119. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned order
of recovery passed by the 3rd respondent herein in his proceedings
Ma.Aa.15.Po.Su.Thu.Na.Ka.No.H1/0979/2021 dated 06.09.2021 and quash
the same and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release the
withheld amount of Rs.1,37,174/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand
One Hundred and Seventy Four Only) together with interest and pay interest
at the rate of 18 percent per annum on the sum of Rs.4,77,034/- (Rupees
Four Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand and Thirty Four only) from the date of
due till the date of realization i.e. on 21.12.2021 owing to the reason of
delay of 24 years.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Raja
For Respondents : Mr.M.Ganesan
Standing Counsel for Corporation
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
W.P.No.2543 of 2022
ORDER
According to the petitioner, the petitioner was working as Senior
Entomologist in the respondent Corporation and superannuated on
30.6.2018. At the time of settling the terminal benefits to the petitioner,
the respondent Corporation withheld a sum of Rs.1,37,174/- by stating that
excess amount has been paid to the petitioner and passed the impugned
recovery order. Challenging the said recovery order, the petitioner has
preferred the present writ petition before this Court.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
the impugned recovery order passed by the respondent is contrary to the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer and Others] reported in (2015) 4 SCC
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent
Corporation has objected by stating that the petitioner was paid excess
amount and therefore, to recover the said amount from the terminal
benefits of the petitioner, the impugned recovery order has been passed.
4. In the light of the judgment made in Rafiq Masih (White
Washer and Others] supra, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court as held
as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2543 of 2022
“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 reference, summarise 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 be
iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far
outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.''
5. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the decision cited supra, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order of recovery as against the petitioner is impermissible and
accordingly, the impugned recovery order is quashed. The third respondent
is directed to release the said amount to the petitioner along with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of the order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2543 of 2022
6. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with the above
directions. No costs.
23.02.2022
Speaking / Non-Speaking order
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
vaan
To
1 The Commissioner,
Corporation Of Greater Chennai, Ribbon Building, Chennai-600 003.
2 The Assistant Commissioner(General Administration And Personnel),
Corporation Of Greater Chennai, Ribbon Building, Chennai-600 003.
3 The Zonal Officer,
Zone-15,Corporation of Greater Chennai,
Sholinganallur, Chennai-600119
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.2543 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
vaan
W.P.No.2543 of 2022
23.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
