Madras High Court
K.Sivakumar vs The Chairman/Managing Director on 19 September, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.12433 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 08.08.2025
Pronounced On : 19.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.12433 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.11308 of 2018 & 20536 of 2023
K.Sivakumar,
S/o V.Krishnan,
1E, HMS Colony,
Anna Nagar,
Bhavani Street,
Arasaradi,
Madurai District – 625016. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman/Managing Director
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd, No.800, Annasalai,
Chennai-2.
2. The Chief Internal Audit Officer,
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd, No.800, Annasalai,
Chennai-2.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
General Constn Circle,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
K.Pudur, Madurai-7. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.12433 of 2018
PRAYER in W.P.:
To issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ Of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order
passed by the 3rd respondent dated 22.05.2018 Ku.Aha.No.MaPo/
PoNiva/Madu/NeePee/Ul/Ko.Thanekai/18 and quash the same and direct
the respondents to pay the 6th pay commission (Revised Option) given by
the petitioner as Memorandum No.57518/A3/A31/2013-1, Dated
03.02.2014 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
PRAYER in WMP(MD)No.11308 of 2018:
To stay all further proceedings of the impugned order passed by
the 3rd respondent dated 22.05.2018 Ku.Aha.No.MaPo/Po/Niva/ Madu/
NeePee/Ul/Ko.Thanekai/ 18, pending disposal of the above writ petition
and thus render justice.
PRAYER in WMP(MD)No.20536 of 2023:
To grant leave to the petitioner / 3rd respondent to file counter
affidavit in the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.12433 of 2018 and pass
such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Chinnaiah, Advocate
for Mr.R.Saravanan,Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan, Advocate
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.12433 of 2018
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The Petitioner, in the present writ petition, seeks a restraint
against the Respondent, TANGEDCO, from recovering the alleged
excess payment. The Petitioner is currently employed as a Junior
Engineer Grade II and was 33 years old at the time of filing the writ
petition.
3. In the impugned order dated 22.05.2018, the Petitioner was
expressly informed that an audit conducted by TANGEDCO had pointed
out an alleged excess payment made to him amounting to Rs. 3,35,827/-.
It was further stated that unless the said amount was repaid, his new scale
of pay would not be fixed.
4. Upon notice from this Court, the Respondent, TANGEDCO,
filed a counter affidavit, wherein it was stated in paragraph 8 as
follows:—
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
“I Respectfully submit further that in pursuance to the
Audit Slip, the Petitioner was informed by the Respondent
regarding the excess pay fixation. As the Petitioner has not
remitted the excess amount, he was informed by the
Respondent directing him to remit the excess amount of Rs.
3,35,827/-. From the above, it is clear that the Petitioner is
knowing well that he has continuously receiving the excess
amount. Instead of repaying the excess amount for which the
Petitioner is not rightfully entitled for the excess amount he
has now come forward and challenging the impugned order
dt. 22.05.2018 is unsustainable.”
5. Strong reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334,
wherein, in paragraph 18, it was held as follows:—
“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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
(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.”
6. In the same case, the Supreme Court also referred to its earlier
decision in Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in
(2012) 8 SCC 417, wherein it was held as follows:—
“16. We are concerned with the excess payment of
public money which is often described as “tax payers
money” which belongs neither to the officers who have
effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. We fail to
see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being
brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether
excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona
fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public
money by Government officers, may be due to various
reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism
etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the
payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the
payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual.
Payments are being effected in many situations without any
authority of law and payments have been received by the
recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount
paid/received without authority of law can always be
recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an
obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it
would amount to unjust enrichment.”
7. Although the reasoning was referred to a larger Bench on the
ground that it was in conflict with another decision, the Supreme Court
ultimately returned the reference and held that no such conflict existed.
In the present case, the Petitioner continues to be in service, and
therefore cannot claim the benefit of the line of reasoning extended to
employees who were on the verge of retirement or had already retired,
where considerations of hardship were applied. Since the Petitioner is
still in service, he is not entitled to retain the excess payment received by
him, and the same is liable to be recovered.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The WMPs are
closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
19.09.2025
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
LS/ay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
Copy to:
1.The Chairman/Managing Director
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd, No.800, Annasalai,
Chennai-2.
2. The Chief Internal Audit Officer,
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Ltd, No.800, Annasalai,
Chennai-2.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
General Constn Circle,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
K.Pudur, Madurai-7.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
19.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
