Partly allowed¶¶45

The Secretry v. Chitra S

Recovery of excess pay – retired education department employee – pay fixation erroneously done with effect from 01.07.2006

Madras HC4 Jun 2025WA(MD)/1292/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Erroneous pay fixation; recovery of excess payment from retired Secondary Grade teacher / Headmistress; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 ('White Washer's case'); five-year bar on recovery; continuing cause of action; refixed pension from 29.04.2024; Clause 15 Letters Patent writ appeal; Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Department, Madurai; W.A(MD)No.1292 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal partly allowed: recovery confined to the excess payment received by the first respondent during the 5 years prior to 29.04.2024; first respondent to draw only refixed pension from 29.04.2024; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶¶45

The Secretry Vs Chitra S — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether, when the first respondent was not at fault, recovery of excess pay arising from erroneous pay fixation could be ordered at this point of time (long after the fixation and after her retirement), and if so to what extent.

¶¶39

Court's answer

In view of the five-year parameter laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih ((2015) 4 SCC 334, the 'White Washer's case'), the excess payment made from the year 2006 to 2019 cannot be ordered to be recovered from the first respondent.

¶¶44

Ratio / Principle

The matter is a continuing cause of action; therefore the excess payment received by the first respondent during the period of 5 years prior to 29.04.2024 can be recovered, and the Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case) parameter does not come to her rescue for that period.

¶¶44

Key takeaways

The appellants are permitted to recover the excess payment received by the writ petitioner/first respondent for the period of 5 years prior to 29.04.2024, and the first respondent will pay only the refixed pension amount with effect from 29.04.2024.ratio¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recovery of excess pay – retired education department employee – pay fixation erroneously done with effect from 01.07.2006 – Block Educational Officer ordered recovery of Rs.18,29,480/- by order dated 29.04.2024 – single Judge set aside recovery applying State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih ((2015) 4 SCC 334, 'White Washer's case') – Department's writ appeal partly allowed: while accepting the five-year parameter of Rafiq Masih, so that excess payment made from 2006 to 2019 cannot be recovered, the Division Bench held the matter to be a continuing cause of action and permitted recovery of the excess payment received by the employee during the five years prior to 29.04.2024; the respondent is to draw only refixed pension with effect from 29.04.2024. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.A(MD)No.1292 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.A(MD)No.1292 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)No.7842 of 2025

¶7

1.The Secretary,

¶8

Education Department, Fort St.George,

¶9

Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

2.The Director,

¶11

The Elementary Education,

¶12

DPI Campus,

¶13

Chennai – 600 006.

¶14

3.The District Education Officer,

¶15

The Elementary Education Department, Madurai District – 625 002.

¶16

4.The Block Development Officer, The Elementary Education Department, Madurai East,

¶17

Madurai District – 625 020.

¶18

... Appellants / Respondents 1 to 4

¶19

Vs.

¶20

1.S.Chitra

¶21

... 1^st Respondent / Writ Petitioner

¶22

1/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.A(MD)No.1292 of 2025

¶25

2.The Assistant Director, State Government of Audit Department, Madurai Region, Pankajam Colony, Teppakulam, Madurai – 625 009. ... 2^nd Respondent / 5^th Respondent

¶26

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 22.07.2024 in W.P(MD)No.16159 of 2024 and allow the Writ Appeal.

¶27

For Appellants : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader

¶28

For Respondents : Mr.K.Muthu Ganesa Pandian

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J. )

¶31

Heard both sides.

¶32

2.The first respondent herein joined the Education Department as

¶33

Secondary Grade teacher in the year 1984. She got selection grade in the year 1994. She became elementary school Headmistress in the year 2000. She got

¶34

2/6

¶35

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

¶36

W.A(MD)No.1292 of 2025

¶37

selection grade in the year 2004. She became Middle School Headmistress in the year 2009. She got selection grade in the year 2019. She voluntarily retired from service on 31.05.2023. While so, the Block Educational Officer, Elementary Education Department, Madurai East, Madurai passed order dated 29.04.2024 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.18,29,480/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty only) from her. According to the Department, her pay fixation was erroneously done with effect from 01.07.2006.

¶38

3.Challenging the recovery order, the first respondent herein filed W.P(MD)No.16159 of 2024. The Writ Petition was allowed by the learned single Judge and the recovery order was set aside by applying the well known White Washer's case (State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih). Questioning the order dated 22.07.2024 whereby W.P(MD)No.16159 of 2024 is allowed, the Department has filed this Writ Appeal.

¶39

4.There is no serious dispute that the pay of the first respondent was erroneously fixed. The only question that calls for consideration is whether when the first respondent was not at fault, recovery could be ordered at this point of time. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported

¶40

3/6

¶41

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

¶42

W.A(MD)No.1292 of 2025

¶43

in (2015) 4 SCC 334 (State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih) had held that

¶44

recovery from the employees when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of 5 years, it is impermissible. But then, this is a continuing cause of action. Therefore, while the excess payment made form the year 2006 to 2019 cannot be ordered to be recovered, the excess payment received by the first respondent for the period of 5 years prior to 29.04.2024 can very well be ordered to be recovered and the parameter laid down in the White Washer's case may not come to the first respondent's rescue. The order is accordingly modified. We permit the appellants to recover the excess payment received by the writ petitioner / first respondent herein for a period of 5 years prior to 29.04.2024. The first respondent will pay only the refixed pension amount with effect from 29.04.2024.

¶45

5.This Writ Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶46

[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 04.06.2025

¶47

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA

¶48

4/6

¶49

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

¶50

W.A(MD)No.1292 of 2025