Madras High Court
K.Singaravelu vs The District Health Officer on 19 June, 2025
W.P.No.21761 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.21761 of 2025
K.Singaravelu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Health Officer
District Health Office
Erode – 600012
2.The Block Medical Officer
Primary Health Centre,
Modakurichi
Erode District – 638104 ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire
records relating to Impugned Proceedings dated 05.01.2024 passed in
R.No.672/2023 on the file of the 2nd Respondent and consequently Impugned
Proceedings dated 08.01.2024 passed in Na.Ka.No.672/2023 on the file of the
2nd respondent, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to
refund sum of Rs.2,88,154/- with interest and fix his original pay scale which
was received on 31.12.2009 with all attendant benefits within a stipulated
period of time as fixed by this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:50:27 pm )
W.P.No.21761 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Tippu Sultan
Government Advocate
ORDER
The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to Impugned
Proceedings dated 05.01.2024 passed in R.No.672/2023 on the file of the 2nd
Respondent and consequently Impugned Proceedings dated 08.01.2024
passed in Na.Ka.No.672/2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent, quash the
same and consequently directing the respondents to refund sum of
Rs.2,88,154/- with interest and fix his original pay scale which was received
on 31.12.2009 with all attendant benefits within a stipulated period of time as
fixed by this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the petitioner
was originally appointed as Multi Purpose Health Assistant on 20.07.1989
and subsequently, he has been given promotion from time to time. It is the
submission of the petitioner that according to the applicable rules, his pay
was fixed and he has been drawing the amount as per his eligibility.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:50:27 pm )
However, all of sudden, vide impugned order dated 08.01.2024, a sum of
Rs.2,88,154/- was recovered by the 2nd respondent from his retirement
benefits. It is the submission of the petitioner that the recovery was effected
from 01.08.2010 on the ground that there was an excess pay since 01.08.2010
and these recoveries were made after the petitioner's retirement on
31.03.2024, which is in contravention to the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the judgment of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents would strongly object the contention of the petitioner and would
submit that the refixation was made in pursuance of the Audit Report in view
of applicable Government Order and furthermore, whenever increment was
given to the petitioner, he had given an undertaking that if any excess amount
received by him, he would return back the same to the Treasury. Therefore, it
is the submission of the learned Government Advocate for the respondents
that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:50:27 pm )
5. Admittedly, it is not the case of the respondents that the excess pay
was made on the misrepresentation of the petitioner or any false statement
made before the respondents. The pay refixation was made by the
respondents on their own. Therefore, if there was any excess amount paid to
the petitioner beyond his entitlement, that is not the fault of the petitioner and
all these years since 01.08.2010, he was allowed to receive such an excess
amount cannot be all of sudden directed to repay that too after he retired from
service.
6. In this connection, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Paragraph No.18
of the said judgment, reads 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 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:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:50:27 pm )
(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.”
7. In view of the above ratio, this is a fit case where the recovery
ordered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the
impugned orders dated 05.01.2024 and 08.01.2024 passed by the 2nd
respondent are quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:50:27 pm )
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that a sum of Rs.2,88,154/- has already been recovered from his retirement
benefits. If such recovery was effected, the respondents are directed to refund
the same to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order, without any interest.
9. Coming back to the question of refixation of pay, it is the specific
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that before refixing his
pay, no notice was issued. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate
would submit that if any direction given to them, they would refix the pay of
the petitioner, after giving due notice.
10. In such view of the matter, while this Court quashing the recovery
order dated 08.01.2024 and the pay fixation dated 23.08.2024, this Court
would like to remit back the matter only to the extent of refixation of the
petitioner's pay by the respondents, after giving due notice to the petitioner,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:50:27 pm )
11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
19.06.2025
(2/4)
dm
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The District Health Officer
District Health Office
Erode – 600012
2.The Block Medical Officer
Primary Health Centre,
Modakurichi
Erode District – 638104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:50:27 pm )
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
dm
19.06.2025
(2/4)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/06/2025 03:50:27 pm )
