Madras High Court
G.Kalaiyazhagan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.13716 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.13716 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos.15411 & 15412 of 2025
G.Kalaiyazhagan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar,
Periyar University,
Salem – 636 011.
3.The Regional Joint Director,
Local Fund Audit Department,
Cherry Road, Maravaneri,
Salem – 636 007.
4.The Assistant Director,
Local Fund Audit Department,
Salem Corporation Building Campus,
Salem – 636 001. ... Respondents
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 01:42:04 pm )
W.P.No.13716 of 2025
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings
P.No.PU/R/R6/00334/23F70662/2023-7 dated 30.03.2023 and the
consequential order of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings P.No.PU/R6/
Estt./003820/23F71231/2023 dated 19.06.2023 and the consequential
order of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings
P.No.PU/R6/Estt./003820/23F71231/2023-5 dated 30.06.2023 and to
quash the same as being illegal and unsustainable in law and for a
consequential direction to the respondents to disburse all the petitioner
service and terminal benefits such as Pension, Leave Salary, UPF
(University Provident Fund), SPF (Special Provident Fund) and all other
benefits which the petitioner is entitled to as Section Officer.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Kavitha Rameshwar
For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Gokulkrishnan
Additional Government Pleader [R1]
Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan
for M/s.Isaac Chambers [R2]
Mr.V.Jeevagiritharan
Additional Government Pleader [R3 & R4]
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the
order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30.03.2023 and the
consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 19.06.2023,
thereby, reverting the petitioner from the post of Superintendent to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 01:42:04 pm )
post of Assistant and also ordered to recover the excess payment of
salary.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant through
direct recruitment on regular vacancy in the 2nd respondent university on
03.05.2000 and his scale of pay was fixed as Rs.3200-85, 4900/-.
Thereafter, he passed the typewriting English in Senior Grade exam
conducted by the Department of Technical Education and also passed the
District Office Manual Test on 16.03.2005 conducted by the Tamil Nadu
Public Service Commission (TNPSC). By order dated 21.04.2005, the 2nd
respondent had regularized the petitioner's services and thereafter, he was
promoted to the post of Assistant w.e.f. 01.08.2006 and his scale of pay
was fixed at Rs.4000-100-6000 that too with the approval of the
syndicate of the 2nd respondent university. Later, the petitioner was
promoted to the post of Superintendent on 27.01.2010 in the scale of pay
of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800/- on condition that the
petitioner should pass the Account Test for Subordinate Officer Part – I
within two years. He had also passed the said exam in the month of
December, 2011 conducted by the TNPSC and subsequently, passed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 01:42:04 pm )
Account Test for Executive Officer in the month of May, 2012 conducted
by the TNPSC. Hence, he was promoted to the post of Section Officer
w.e.f. 04.01.2016 in the scale of pay of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay
of Rs.5400. Thereafter, the petitioner has also passed the Account Test
for Subordinate Officer Part II in May 2021 conducted by the TNPSC.
While being so, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice, dated
09.01.2023 calling for explanation from the petitioner in respect of
revision of pay in the post of Section Officer. On receipt of the same, he
submitted his explanation. However, without considering the explanation
submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated
30.03.2023 reduced his scale of pay w.e.f. 01.03.2023 in the post of
Section Officer, which resulted in reduction of Rs.20,000/- p.m.
Thereafter, another show cause notice dated 20.04.2023 was also issued
on the objection of “Local Fund Audit” from the year 2007-08 to 2020-
21 mentioning that there is a lacuna in his appointment and promotions,
since he did not pass the Account Test for Subordinate Officer Part II and
the Account Test for Executive Officer for declaration of probation in the
feeder category. On receipt of the same, the petitioner has also submitted
his explanation on 19.08.2023. However, without considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 01:42:04 pm )
explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has passed an
order dated 19.06.2023, thereby reverting the petitioner from the post of
Section Officer to Assistant, which is two posts lower the post of Section
Officer, on the ground that probation has not been declared. Thereafter,
the 2nd respondent relieved the petitioner from the service on
superannuation in the post of Assistant vide order dated 30.06.2023.
Challenging the above orders passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner
has filed the present writ petition before this Court.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
4. The issue of recovery has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and this Court repeatedly. In this regard, it is relevant to rely
upon the decision of the Madurai Bench of this Court in
W.P.(MD).No.6635 of 2019, dated 25.09.2013, wherein it is held as
follows :-
“2. The Government vide Letter (Ms) No.174, dated
25.09.2013 directed the Registrars of all Universities to
take suitable action to re-fix pay/reverse wrong promotions/
increments given which were pointed out in the report of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 01:42:04 pm )
the Director of Local Fund Audit. The Registrars were also
called upon to recover the excess payment from the
individual staff concerned. Challenging the same, the
present writ petition came to be filed.
............
8.Section 27 of the Act will not empower the Government to
issue a direction of this nature. The Director of Local Fund
Audit had gone to the extent of stating that the university
has been giving wrong promotions /increments. The job of
the Local Fund Audit is to see if the expenditure incurred by
the university is in consonance with the policy of the
university. As per Section 27 of the Act, the Syndicate has
the power to appoint the University Lectures, University
staff and fix their emoluments. It is not for the Local Fund
Audit to go into the justification of the promotions given by
the university. The Government has gone entirely by the
report of the Local Fund Audit. It clearly amounts to
interference with the internal administration of the
university. Section 27 of the Act has been misconstrued by
the Government. The impugned communication is without
jurisdiction. It is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.”
Therefore, insofar as the 2nd respondent university is concerned, the sub
section 27 (a) and (b) of the Periyar University Act, the syndicate has the
power to appoint the University Lecturers, Readers, Professors, Teachers
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 01:42:04 pm )
and the administrative staff along with similar posts and fix their
emoluments, if any, define their duties and the conditions of their
services and provide for filling up for temporary vacancies.
5. It is seen that the show cause notice issued by the 2nd
respondent dated 20.04.2023 was issued on the objections raised by the
Local Fund Audit from the year 2007-08 to 2020-21. As per statutes of
the 2nd respondent, qualification to the post of Junior Assistant,
Superintendent and Section Officer has follows :-
Post Qualification
By Direct Recruitment By promotion
Section Officer 1. Graduate (55% or B grade). By promotion from
2. A pass in Account test for the category of
subordinate officer Part-I with not Superintendent with
less than 5 years' service in the four years of service.
cadre of Assistant.
3. Typewriting Higher grade in
English and Tamil.
4. Diploma in Computer
Applications
Superintendent 1.Graduate (55% or B grade). By promotion from
2. A pass in Account test for the category of
subordinate officer Part-I. Assistant with four
3. The Assistants who do not years of service.
possess the degree qualification
shall be promoted on condition that
they will be eligible to draw
increments after acquiring a degree
in four years.
4. Typewriting Higher grade in
English and Tamil.
5. Diploma in Computer
Applications
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 01:42:04 pm )
Post Qualification
By Direct Recruitment By promotion
Assistant 1. B.Sc.(Comp.Sci.) or BCA or PG By promotion from
Diploma in Comp. Applications the category of
2.Typewriting Higher grade in Junior
English and Tamil. Assistant/Steno
3. Knowledge of Tamil to the Typist with four
extent of carrying official years of service.
correspondences and drafting
reports.
4. Knowledge in visual basic,
Oracle & Web Tech. with 2 years
experience.
Junior 1. B.Sc.(Comp.Sci.) or BCA or PG 1. By direct
Assistant Diploma in Comp. Applications recruitment
2.Typewriting Higher grade in or
English and Tamil. By promotion from
3. Knowledge of Tamil to the category of Record
extent of carrying official Clerk/Officer Asst./
correspondences and drafting Attender having 5 yrs
reports. of service and a basic
4. Knowledge in Visual Basic, qualification of +2.
oracle & Web Tech. with 2 years He shall not be
experience. eligible to draw
increments until he
acquires a degree in
4 years.
6. The petitioner had qualifications of Typewriting English in
Senior grade, the District Office Manual Test, The Account Test for
Subordinate Officer Part – I, the Account Test for Subordinate Officer
Part – II. That apart, he was promoted with the approval of the syndicate
of the 2nd respondent university.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 01:42:04 pm )
7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, in which the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :-
“12. 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. 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.”
Thus it is clear that recovery shall not be made after the period of five
years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 01:42:04 pm )
8. Further, as far as the promotions are concerned, the petitioner
was no way responsible for the promotions granted by the 2nd respondent.
It is the duty of the authorities concerned to verify the records before
granting promotions to their employees. It is not the case of the 2 nd
respondent that the petitioner made any false representation or mis-
representation in respect of his promotions. Therefore, the fault, if any,
committed by the authorities concerned, cannot be foisted as against the
petitioner by reverting him from the post of Section Officer to the post of
Assistant, that too, lower by two posts. Further, the show cause notice
was issued on the strength of the objections raised by the Audit
Department. The audit objections related to the Audit Department cannot
interfere with the decision of the 2nd respondent to grant promotions,
since it has no power to raise any objections relating to any promotions.
9. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the 2nd
respondent cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and accordingly,
stands quashed. The respondents are directed to disburse all the service
and terminal benefits to the petitioner in the post of Section Officer,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 01:42:04 pm )
within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
10. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition
stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
11.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
sp
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar,
Periyar University,
Salem – 636 011.
3.The Regional Joint Director,
Local Fund Audit Department,
Cherry Road, Maravaneri, Salem – 636 007.
4.The Assistant Director,
Local Fund Audit Department,
Salem Corporation Building Campus,
Salem – 636 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 01:42:04 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
sp
11.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/11/2025 01:42:04 pm )
