Madras High Court
N.Semburaj vs The Registrar General on 7 April, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.P.No.12310 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
Writ Petition No. 12310 of 2025
and WMP Nos.13899 and 13900 of 2025
N.Semburaj .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Registrar General,
High Court Buildings,
Chennai 600 104.
2. The Principal District Judge,
Namakkal,
Namakkal District.
3. The District Treasury,
Namakkal District.
4. The Assistant Accountant,
Office of the Accountant General (A& E),
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
W.P.No.12310 of 2025
records pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent vide
Roc.No.6311/A/2023 dated 28.04.2023 and to quash the same and
consequently direct the respondent to refund the amount recovered from the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.V. Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Ms.B.Poongkhuzhali,
Standing Counsel for RR1 & R2
Mr. P.Anandakumar
Government Advocate for RR3 & 4
********
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge is to the order dated 28.04.2023, in and by which, the
Principal District Judge, Namakkal, had directed recovery of a sum of
Rs.2,86,502/- from the petitioner. Recovery was ordered based on the audit
objections made by the Audit Wing of the High Court, on the ground that
the scale of pay for the petitioner in the post of Assistant, Judicial
Magistrate No.1 Court, Namakkal, was fixed incorrectly with effect from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
01.04.2017 to 31.03.2021. In and by the very same proceedings, the salary
disbursement Officer had also re-fixed the salary of the petitioner.
2. The main ground of challenge to the order is that recovery
cannot be made. The question of recovery is covered by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer's case) reported in AIR 2015 SC 696. A Division Bench of
this Court in P.Ponnusamy Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of
Madras made in W.P.No.8952 etc., batch of 2023 dated 04.03.2024 has,
after referring to the relevant precedents on the point held that recovery
cannot be made but, the Division Bench in the said judgment has also
pointed out, re-fixation that has been done in accordance with pay rules
shall be sustained. The said judgment, in our opinion, squarely covers the
issue raised in this writ petition also.
3. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is partly allowed,
quashing the order to the extent that it directs recovery of the excess amount
paid to the petitioner. The re-fixation done is sustained. If any recovery
had been made, the amount recovered alone shall be repaid to the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
07.04.2025
jv
Index: No
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: No
To
1. The Registrar General,
High Court Buildings,
Chennai 600 104.
2. The Principal District Judge,
Namakkal,
Namakkal District.
3. The District Treasury,
Namakkal District.
4. The Assistant Accountant,
Office of the Accountant General (A& E),
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
(jv)
Writ Petition No. 12310 of 2025
and WMP Nos.13899 and 13900 of 2025
07.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 12:34:32 pm )
