Madras High Court
V. Sakthivel vs The Secretary on 18 September, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.930 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 01.08.2025
Pronounced On : 18.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.930 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.787 to 789 of 2017 and 26813 of 2023
V. Sakthivel,
Foreman I Grade,
O/o the Assistant Engineer,
Manaparai (south),
Manaparai
Trichy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Secretariat Branch,
TANGEDCO,
N.P.K.R.R. Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
2.The Deputy Chief Internal Audit Officer,
Trichy Region,
TANGEDCO, Thennur,
Trichy – 17.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
O/o the Superintending Engineer,
Trichy Elecy Distn Circle,
Metro, Trichy- 20.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:56 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.930 of 2017
4.The Executive Engineer,
O/o the Executive Engineer,
Operation and Maintenance,
Manapparai, Trichy. ... Respondents
PRAYER in W.P.:
To issue a a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus or any other
appropriate order or direction in the nature or writ calling for the records
relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his
proceedings Memo.No. 543/ Adm - II/ JA / F / Fixation / 2016, dated
05.11.2016 implementing the order passed by the 1st respondent in Letter
NO.69454/A3/A31/2015-1, dated 28.10.2016 confirming the order passed
by the 4th respondent in his proceedings Memo.No.29/EE/O&MPI/A.
2/F.Audit/2011 dated 21.09.2011 and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially to direct the respondents to revise the scale of pay of
petitioner in terms of the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent
Memo.No.2456/EE/D&M/MPI/A.l/F.S.Gr./2002 dated 13.12.2002 and pay
the recovered amount within the period that may be stipulated by this
Hon'ble Court and pass further or other orders as this Hon’ble court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:56 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.930 of 2017
PRAYER in WMP(MD)No.787 of 2017:
To dispense with the production of the impugned order passed by
the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Memo.No. 543/ Adm - II/ JA / F /
Fixation / 2016, dated 05.11.2016 implementing the order passed by the 1 st
respondent in Letter NO.69454/A3/A31/2015-1, dated 28.10.2016
confirming the order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings
Memo.No.29/EE/O&MPI/A.2/F.Audit/2011 dated 21.09.2011 for the
present and thus render justice.
PRAYER in WMP(MD)No.788 of 2017:
To grant an ad-interim stay of operation of the impugned order
passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Memo.No. 543/ Adm - II/
JA / F / Fixation / 2016, dated 05.11.2016 implementing the order passed
by the 1st respondent in Letter NO.69454/A3/A31/2015-1, dated
28.10.2016 confirming the order passed by the 4th respondent in his
proceedings Memo.No.29/EE/O&MPI/A.2/F.Audit/2011 dated
21.09.2011 pending disposal of the writ petition and thus render justice.
PRAYER in WMP(MD)No.789 of 2017:
To grant an ad-interim direction, to direct the respondents to revise
the scale of pay of petitioner in terms of the proceedings issued by the 4 th
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:56 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.930 of 2017
respondent Memo No.2456/EE/D&M/MPI/A.1/F.S.Gr./2002 dated
13.12.2002 pending disposal of the above writ petition and thus render
justice.
PRAYER in WMP(MD)No.26813 of 2023:
To condone the delay of 1752 days in filing the counter in the above
writ petition in W.P(MD)No.930 of 2017 and take it on file and pass such
further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, Advocate
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : M/s.M.Rajeswari, Advocate for R1
: Mr.B.Ramanathan, Advocate for R2 to R4
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The Petitioner, who was employed as a Foreman Grade I in the
office of the Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Manaparai (South), has
filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 29.01.2011, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:56 pm )
were subsequently confirmed by orders dated 28.10.2016 and 05.11.2016.
By these orders, a sum of Rs.21,278/- was directed to be recovered from
the Petitioner on the ground of excess payment made, pursuant to an audit
objection. The Petitioner’s appeal and further appeal were dismissed,
leading to the present proceedings before this Court.
3. Although notice had been served on the respondents, no counter
affidavit was filed for over five years. Subsequently, the 4th Respondent
filed a counter dated 02.12.2023, accompanied by an application seeking
condonation of delay, which is yet to be considered. Nevertheless, the
matter was argued on the basis of the said counter. In paragraphs 6 and 7
of the counter, the reasons for effecting the deduction have been set out as
follows:—
“6. I respectfully submit that the writ petitioner promoted
as Commercial Inspector on 30.03.2007 ie. After 16.06.2006
issued B.P.(Ch) No. 107 Secretariat Branch, those who are not
eligible for 33(b) ie. 5% promotion fixation without selection
grade employees. Further, it is ordered in the B.P.No. 11 dated
08.02.2006, the selection grade and promotion post scale are
one and the same, the promotion fixation benefit will be one
increment only. Therefore allowing one promotion post scale
as Selection Grade Scale will be disadvantages to some of the
persons who got promotion from Selection Grade post to a
higher post during the period between 01.12.2002 and till date.
In that case necessary protection of pay shall be allowed. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:56 pm )
employee shall allowed to confirm in the same scale of pay
already fixed in the promoted post without re-fixation in the
revised selection grade scale.
7. I respectfully submit that based on above fixation of
scale the writ petitioner was paid excess amount of Rs.21,278/-
as point out by the audit proceedings dated 21.09.2011 and
ordered for recovery. But the recovery order or recovery from
the writ petitioner did not challenge within time frame. Hence
the recovery made, thereafter writ petitioner made
representation dated 19.09.2014 which was considered and
issued proceedings dated __.04.2015, 19.05.2015 and appeal
filed on 18.06.2015 and 28.10.2016 and 05.11.2016.”
4. In view of the stand taken by the Respondents, no case has been
made out. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. W.M.P. (MD)
No. 26813 of 2023 is allowed for the reasons set out in the accompanying
affidavit. All other W.M.Ps. filed by the Petitioner stand dismissed. No
order as to costs.
18.09.2025
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
LS/ay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:56 pm )
To
1.The Secretary,
Secretariat Branch,
TANGEDCO,
N.P.K.R.R. Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
2.The Deputy Chief Internal Audit Officer,
Trichy Region,
TANGEDCO, Thennur,
Trichy – 17.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO,
O/o the Superintending Engineer,
Trichy Elecy Distn Circle,
Metro, Trichy- 20.
4.The Executive Engineer,
O/o the Executive Engineer,
Operation and Maintenance,
Manapparai,
Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:56 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
18.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/09/2025 03:36:56 pm )
