Madras High Court
T.V.Mohan vs The Registrar General on 20 February, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
W.P.No.38001 of 2024
---------------------------
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No. 38001 of 2024
and
W.M.P.No.41096 of 2024
T.V.Mohan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Registrar General,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Tiruvallur District,
Tiruvallur - 602 001.
3.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruvallur @ Ponneri ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
3rd respondent vide order dated 27.09.2024 in D.No.1166/2024 and quash
the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to release the salary
without any deduction and refund the recovered amount in the salary.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.38001 of 2024
---------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvakumar
For Respondents : Mr.S.Arjun Suresh for R1 to R3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge is to the order dated 27.09.2024, in and by which, the
salary disbursement Officer / IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruvallur @ Ponneri, had directed recovery of a sum of Rs.1,91,049/- from
the petitioner in 25 monthly installments. Recovery was ordered based on
the audit objections made by the Audit Wing of the High Court, on the
ground that the petitioner was sanctioned with an inadmissible increment,
upon his transfer from the post of Night Watchman to the post of Office
Assistant with effect from 01.07.2007. In and by the very same
proceedings, the salary disbursement Officer had also re-fixed the salary of
the petitioner, after allowing the admissible increments.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
---------------------------
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 within a
period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
20.02.2025
dsa
Index : No
Neutral Citation : No
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
---------------------------
To:
1.The Registrar General,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Tiruvallur District,
Tiruvallur - 602 001.
3.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruvallur @ Ponneri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
---------------------------
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
dsa
20.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
