Madras High Court

C.Poonkuzhali vs The District Adi Dravidar And Tribal ... on 26 March, 2025

Author: Battu Devanand

Bench: Battu Devanand

                                                                                      W.P.(MD)No.8361 of 2025

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 26.03.2025

                                                        CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

                                         W.P.(MD)No.8361 of 2025
                                                  and
                                         W.M.P(MD)No.6270 of 2025

                C.Poonkuzhali                                                               ... Petitioner

                                                             Vs.

                1.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer,
                  Thanjavur

                2.The Special Tahsildar (ADW),
                  Old Collectorate Complex,
                  Thanjavur – 613 001.                                                      ... Respondents

                PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
                issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent
                i.e., the Special Tahsildar (ADW), Thanjavur in his Na.Ka.320/2024/A3 dated
                10.07.2024 in respect of S.No.7 alone and quash the same.


                                    For Petitioner           : Mr.S.Visvalingam

                                    For Respondents          : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
                                                               Government Advocate




                1/8




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 04:33:41 pm )
                                                                                        W.P.(MD)No.8361 of 2025

                                                       ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the

second respondent, dated 10.07.2024 in respect of S.No.7 alone.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she is working as a Secondary Grade

Teacher. She was sanctioned incentive increment for passing M.Sc.Degree from

29.05.2003 by the second respondent. As per G.O.(Perm)No.83, School

Education Department, dated 28.04.2017, the above said incentive increment

has to be sanctioned only from the date of the said G.O. But she has been

sanctioned with the incentive increment from the year 2003. Based on audit

objection, the second respondent vide order, dated 10.07.2024 issued an order

of recovery. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the submissions made by the respective learned counsels and

carefully perused the materials available on record.

4.The only issue to be considered in this writ petition is whether the

second respondent is entitled to recover the an amount of Rs.1,53,913/-.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 04:33:41 pm )

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Secondary Grade Teacher. She

was sanctioned incentive increment for passing M.Sc.,Degree from 29.05.2003.

The Government issued G.O.(Perm)No.83, School Education Department dated

28.04.2017 granting incentive increment only from the date of the said G.O i.e

on 28.04.2017. As the petitioner was granted incentive increment from the year

2003 much earlier to the said Government Order and in view of the fact that the

petitioner is a Group-C employee, the respondents are not entitled to initiate

proceedings for recovery of the amount paid to the petitioner towards incentive

increment prior to issuance of G.O.(Perm)No.83, School Education Department

dated 28.04.2017.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the second respondent is not entitled to recover the

amount from the petitioner in the light of settled law on this issue.

7. In fact, on several occasions, identical issue came up for consideration

before this Court. By following the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 (State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq

Masih(White Washer) & Others), this Court set aside the proceedings of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 04:33:41 pm )

recovery in W.P.No.6945 of 2022, dated 26.06.2023 and in W.P(MD)No.16106

of 2016, dated 20.07.2023. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), is extracted herein under:

“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 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 employers right to recover.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 04:33:41 pm )

8. The guidelines as relevant to the present case are that no recovery to be

initiated from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group

C and Group D service) and no recovery from employees, when the excess

payment to be made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of

recovery is issued. Thus, the impugned order is un-sustainable.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Thomas Daniel case, while considering

identical issue, held as extracted herein under:

“(14) Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General.

(15) Having regard to the above, we are of the view that an attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified.”

10. This Court in W.P.(MD) No.17154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.22395

of 2016, while dealing the identical issues, has set aside the orders for recovery

impugned therein.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2025 04:33:41 pm )

11. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case

and in the light of the authorities stated supra, this Court has no hesitation to

hold that the action of the second respondent in issuing the impugned order for

recovery is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of the principles of natural

justice and accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

12. For the above reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following

directions: -