S.Parimalam vs The Honble Principal District Judge,
2026 Latest Caselaw 2640 Mad

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2640 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 May, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

S.Parimalam vs The Honble Principal District Judge, on 20 May, 2026

Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

                                                                 W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2026


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                            DATED : 20.05.2026

                                                    CORAM:

                      THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
                                              and
                             THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

                                          W.P(MD)No.14321 of 2026
                                                  and
                                          WMP(MD)No.10745 of 2026


                   S.Parimalam                                         ... Petitioner

                                                          Vs.

                   1.The Hon'ble Principal District Judge,
                   O/o.Hon'ble Principal District Judge
                   Tuticorin.


                   2.The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate
                   O/o.The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate
                   Tuticorin.


                   3.The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II
                   O/o.Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II
                   Tuticorin.                                               ...Respondents


                   ____________
                   Page 1 of 7




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                    W.P.(MD) No.14321 of 2026




                   PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

                   India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call

                   for the records pertaining to the Impugned recovery order passed by the 3rd

                   respondent dated 06.05.2026 and the consequential impugned re-fixing the

                   salary order of the 3rd Respondent 11.05.2026 and the quash the same are

                   illegal and consequently, direct the Respondents to terminate the all

                   recovery proceedings against the Petitioner and permit him to retire from

                   service on 30.06.2026 with all consequential service benefits.


                                  For Petitioner      : Mr.V.Malaiyendran

                                  For Respondents    : Mr.Sivaraman - for R1 to R3


                                                     ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.)

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

06.05.2026. By the said order, the pay of the petitioner was revised

downwards and refixed and the excess payment that is made with effect

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

from 01.10.2012 upto 30.04.2026, totally amounting to Rs.2,02,366/- is

sought to be recovered from the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is presently working as Office Assistant and the recovery is now

sought to be made at the verge of retirement. The petitioner is due for

retirement with effect from 30.06.2026. Even though the writ petition is

filed, challenging the very refixation itself, the learned counsel would

contest the order only with reference to the recovery that is ordered to be

made.

3. According to the learned counsel, the same is covered by the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab vs.

Rafiq Masih (reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334).

4. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents would submit that as far as the refixation is concerned, the

same is justified and if opportunity is granted, further counter will be filed.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

As far as recovery is concerned, since excess amount is paid, the same is

sought to be recovered.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made on either

side and perused the material records of the case.

6. During the course of the arguments, upon query by this

Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner himself would restrict the

arguments only with reference to the recovery that is made. As far as the

recovery is concerned, firstly, it is made from Class-IV employee, secondly,

it is made for a period in excess of five years and that too at the verge of

retirement. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is covered by more than one

limb of para 12 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Rafiq Masih's case cited supra.

7. In view thereof, this writ petition is partly allowed on the

following terms :

1. The impugned order dated 06.05.2026 shall stand

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

set aside inasmuch as it relates to order recovery of a sum of Rs.2,02,366/-

and it is upheld with reference to the revision of pay of the petitioner is

concerned. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

                                                               (D.B.C., J.)       (R.P., J.)
                                                                         20.05.2026
                   Index : Yes /No
                   Internet : Yes / No
                   NCC : Yes /No
                   rm




                   ____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1.The Hon'ble Principal District Judge, O/o.Hon'ble Principal District Judge Tuticorin.

2.The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate O/o.The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Tuticorin.

3.The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II O/o.Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II Tuticorin.

____________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

and R.POORNIMA, J.

Order made in

and

20.05.2026

____________