Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Arakonam Ekhu Alai Anna on 14 August, 2023
W.A.No.875 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 14.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.875 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.6751 of 2019
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Industries (MIA-I) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. ... Appellant
Vs
1.Arakonam Ekhu Alai Anna
Thozhilalar Sangam,
(Regn. No.754/NAT),
rep. by its General Secretary,
S-1, 6th Street, Ekhu Nagar,
Arakonam – 631 004.
2.Tamil Nadu Steels Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Arakonam – 631 004.
3.Tamil Nadu Industrial Development
Corporation Limited,
rep. by its Chairman-cum-M.D.,
19-A, Rukmani Lakshimpathy Salai,
Egmore, Chennai – 8. .. Respondents
Page No.1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.875 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set
aside the order dated 13.09.2006 made in W.P.No.5002 of 1999.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Kumaravel
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KUMARESH BABU,J.)
This intra-court appeal had been filed by the appellant as being
aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned
Single Judge had quashed the portion of the Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.524 Industries (MIA1) Department dated 21.08.1998 wherein
under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, compensation given to the
employees of the second respondent would be collected back in easy
installment on their absorption in other public sector undertaking and had
held that the Government is not entitled to claim back the compensation
paid to the employees even after absorption.
Page No.2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.875 of 2019
2.The Government Order that has been impugned in the writ petition
was issued by the Government on 21.08.1998. The writ petition had been
filed in the year 1999 and thereafter was disposed of by an order of this
Court on 13.09.2006. The writ appeal seems to have been filed in the year
2009 but was numbered only in the year 2019. It is to be noted that the
employees who had been given voluntary retirement under the second
respondent Company and who would have been retired in the interregnum
and it is almost 24 years when the said Government Order was passed and
17 years, the writ petition had been disposed of.
3.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others
Vs. Rafiq Mashi (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334
held that no recovery can be made from the employees who have been
already retired. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 182 of the judgment
has held as follows:
“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
Page No.3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.875 of 2019
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.
(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.”
Page No.4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.875 of 2019
4.In view of the aforesaid judgment, we do not find any infirmity in
the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal therefore
fails. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
14.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
cse
To
1.Arakonam Ekhu Alai Anna Thozhilalar Sangam,
(Regn. No.754/NAT),
rep. by its General Secretary,
S-1, 6th Street, Ekhu Nagar,
Arakonam – 631 004.
2.Tamil Nadu Steels Limited,
rep. by its Managing Director,
Arakonam – 631 004.
3.Tamil Nadu Industrial Development
Corporation Limited,
rep. by its Chairman-cum-M.D.,
19-A, Rukmani Lakshimpathy Salai,
Egmore, Chennai – 8.
Page No.5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.875 of 2019
R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
cse
W.A.No.875 of 2019
14.08.2023
Page No.6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
