[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
R.Krishnaveni vs The Principal Accountant General (A & E) ... on 16 March, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P(MD)No.6830 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P(MD)No.6830 of 2026
and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5655 & 5657 of 2026
R.Krishnaveni ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Principal Accountant General (A & E) Tamil Nadu,
361, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 018.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the proceedings of respondent No.1 in No.AG(A and
E)PEN E02/10232809/5/R0232809/2175 dated 31.10.2025 and the
consequential proceedings of the Respondent No.2 in order No.5 of 2026
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 05:49:22 pm )
W.P(MD)No.6830 of 2026
dated 24.2.2026 and to quash the same by cancelling the said order of
refixation and recovery and consequently direct the respondents to pay the
arrears of salary, pension, gratuity and all retirement benefits with interest
for the belated payment of retirement benefits to the petitioner within the
period that may fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Baskar
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent
dated 31.10.2025 and the consequential order passed by the second
respondent dated 24.03.2026, and seeking a direction to cancel the said
orders of refixation and recovery, and consequently to direct the respondents
to pay the arrears of salary, pension, gratuity, and all retirement benefits with
interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits, the petitioner has
filed the present Writ Petition.
2.The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed in the
Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service in the Principal District Court,
Tirunelveli, on 19.11.1998. She was subsequently promoted as Office
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 05:49:22 pm )
Assistant, then as Examiner, and later as Junior Assistant on 02.08.2014.
Owing to her physical condition and family circumstances, she made a
representation seeking reversion to the post of Examiner, which was
accepted, and she was accordingly reverted with effect from 01.08.2015. The
petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2025. It is
further stated that, based on the proceedings of the first respondent, the
second respondent issued a notice alleging that the petitioner was not
entitled to the increment granted on 02.08.2014 and that the same had been
paid in excess till the date of her retirement, proposing recovery from her
DCRG. Though the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, the second
respondent, without considering the same, passed an order dated 24.02.2026
refixing her pay and directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from
her retirement benefits. Challenging the proceedings of the first respondent
dated 30.11.2025 and the consequential order of the second respondent dated
24.02.2026, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 05:49:22 pm )
3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that due to incorrect pay fixation, the petitioner had been paid in excess, and
therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 31.10.2025 and 24.03.2026 were
issued.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials on record.
5.At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working in a
Group ‘D’ post. It is well settled, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, that recovery from employees
belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’
service) is impermissible in law. The said ratio is squarely applicable to the
petitioner’s case. The respondents have already refixed the pay of the
petitioner, and the petitioner has no grievance regarding such re-fixation.
The petitioner only seeks cancellation of the recovery amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 05:49:22 pm )
6.In view of the above, the impugned orders are quashed insofar
as they relate to recovery. If any amount has already been recovered pursuant
to the impugned proceedings, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner.
7.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
16.03.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The Principal Accountant General (A & E) Tamil Nadu,
361, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 018.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 05:49:22 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ps
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 16.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2026 05:49:22 pm )
