Madras High Court
The District Collector vs N.P.Indhumathy on 25 October, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar
W.A.No.3200 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
W.A.No.3200 of 2025
1. The District Collector
Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.
2. The Treasury Officer
District Treasury, Mayiladuthurai. .. Appellants
Vs.
1. N.P.Indhumathy
2. The Accountant General (A and E)
No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet
Chennai - 18. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against
the order dated 08.07.2025 made in W.P.No.22770 of 2025.
For the Appellants : Mr.M.Alagu Goutham
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order
passed by the Writ Court vide the order dated 08.07.2025 made in
W.P.No.22770 of 2025.
2. The first respondent was the writ petitioner, who, after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:08 pm )
having worked as Special Tahsildar, retired from service on
superannuation on 31.03.2024. After one year after her retirement,
an order has been passed on 14.03.2025 for recovery of a sum of
Rs.5,41,315/-, as if, there was excess pay since 01.01.2012.
3. Challenging the said order, the said writ petition was
moved. The learned Writ Court, having followed the dictum of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors.
vs. Rafiz Masih (White Washer) and Ors.1, especially paragraph
18 of the judgment, has allowed the said writ petition through the
impugned order.
4. Heard Mr.M.Alagu Goutham, learned Government Advocate
for the appellants.
5. It is an admitted case that the first respondent/writ
petitioner was allowed to retire on superannuation on 31.03.2024
peacefully. Therefore, after her retirement, there was no
employer-employee relationship between them and moreover, as
against a retired employee, no such recovery could be made, that
too, after one year after superannuation and retirement of the
1 (2015) 4 SCC 334
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:08 pm )
employee.
6. This situation is one of the situations dealt with by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the White Washer case (cited supra).
Therefore, following the said dictum, since the writ petition was
allowed, of course rightly, the same does not warrant any
interference at our hands. Hence, the writ appeal fails and
accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.26089 of 2025 is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (S.S., J.)
25.10.2025
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
(drm)
To:
1. The District Collector
Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.
2. The Treasury Officer
District Treasury, Mayiladuthurai.
3. The Accountant General (A and E)
No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet
Chennai - 18.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:08 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
(drm)
25.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:08 pm )
