Madras High Court

N.Ravichandran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 September, 2025

                                                                                             W.P.(MD) No.15331 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.15331 of 2018
                                                         and
                                            WMP(MD)Nos.13828 & 13829 of 2018

                     N.Ravichandran,
                     S/o.Natarajan,
                     26, Pandi Nagar,
                     Othaveedu,
                     Andalkottaram,
                     Madurai – 20.                                               ... Petitioner
                                                     Vs.

                     1. State of Tamil Nadu,
                     Rep by its Principal Secretary,
                     Department of Health and Family Welfare
                     Fort.St.George,
                     Chennai – 9.

                     2.. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
                     Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
                     Chennai - 600 006.                            ... Respondents


                     PRAYER in W.P.:
                                  To issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to
                     the Impugned Order in Letter (D).No.924 dated 23.05.2018 on the file of
                     the Respondent No.l and the Consequential Impugned Order in
                     R.No.l6876/Mp1/S4/2014 dated 15.06.2018 on the file of the

                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
                                                                                               W.P.(MD) No.15331 of 2018

                     Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and pass such further or
                     other order 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.13828 of 2018:
                                  To dispense with the production of original copy of the Impugned
                     Order in Letter (D).No.924 dated 23.05.2018 on the file of the
                     Respondent           No.l     and    the     Consequential               Impugned      Order    in
                     R.No.l6876/Mp1/S4/2014 dated 15.06.2018 on the file of the respondent
                     No.2 for the present and thus render justice.


                     PRAYER in WMP(MD)No.13829 of 2018:
                                  To pass an order of interim stay of operation of the Impugned
                     Order in Letter (D).No.924 dated 23.05.2018 on the file of the
                     Respondent           No.l     and    the     Consequential               Impugned      Order    in
                     R.No.l6876/Mp1/S4/2014 dated 15.06.2018 on the file of the respondent
                     No.2, pending disposal of the writ petition and thus render justice.


                     APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
                                  For Petitioner          : M/s.B.Rohini, Advocate,
                                                            for M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy Associates

                                  For Respondents         : Mr.V.Om Prakash,
                                                            Government Advocate




                     2/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                     ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )
                                                                                            W.P.(MD) No.15331 of 2018



                                                        JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. The above writ petition has been challenged by the Petitioner,

who continues to be in service. When the matter was taken up on

16.07.2018, this Court, while issuing notice to the Special Government

Pleader, granted an interim stay on the recovery proceedings. Pursuant to

the notice issued by this Court, the Respondents have filed a counter

affidavit, dated Nil, July 2019.

3. The first impugned order, dated 23.05.2018, was issued by the

State Government to the 2nd Respondent in relation to the case of the

Petitioner. In the said order, it was stated as follows:—

“2. In this regard, I am directed to inform you that Leprosy Allowance / Special Allowance is being paid to Medical officers and staff working in Leprosy Institutions, Leprosy Wards in Government Hospitals and Rehabilitation Homes. As per the job Chart, they are not eligible for Leprosy Allowance with reference to Special Allowance. Previously, Grade – I B Health Inspectors had been paid Rs.50/- p.m. for pay protection. As per G.O. (Ms) No. 382, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.10.2007, Health Inspector Grade – I B were redesignated as Health Inspector Grade-I B with revised

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )

pay equal to existing Health Inspector Grade – I who were not paid any Special Allowance. I am therefore to clarify that the Health Inspector Grade – I (A) and Grade I B are not eligible for any Special Allowance / Leprosy Allowance.”

4. In paragraph 10(ix) of the counter affidavit, it has been averred

as follows:—

“The continuance of the existing promotion channels as Non-Medical Supervisor and Health Educator to the re- designated Health Inspector Grade-I (erstwhile Leprosy Inspectors) did not amount to bestowing a double benefit upon this category. Therefore, the High Court did not enforce negative equality. The High Court has correctly observed that upon integration and merger into one cadre, the pre-existing length of service of the Leprosy Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspector Grade-I (B) had to be protected as it cannot be obliterated. Therefore, the Leprosy Inspectors have been correctly placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the already existing Health Inspector Grade- I with effect from 27th June 1997. Therefore, it cannot be said that the benefit has been given to the Leprosy Inspectors / Health Inspector Grade-I (B) / Health Inspector Grade-I with retrospective effect.”

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafi Masiq,

reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein in paragraph 18 it was held as

follows:—

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )

“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 employer's right to recover.”

6. In the same case, the Hon’ble 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:—

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )

“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 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. Though the reasoning was referred to a Larger Bench on the

ground that it was in conflict with another decision, the Supreme Court

returned the reference and held that there was no such conflict. In the

present case, the Petitioner continues to be in service and, therefore,

cannot seek the benefit of the line of reasoning extended in favour of

employees who were on the verge of retirement or had already retired,

where considerations of hardship applied. Since the Petitioner remains in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:51:48 pm )

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 stands dismissed. The connected

WMPs are closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.