Dismissed¶41

The Director of School Education v. R Keerthiga

Madras HC20 Jan 2025WA(MD)/2681/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal; special pay; G.O.(Ms).No.23 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 12.01.2011; pay refixation; recovery of excess payment barred after five years; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case) applied; Secondary Grade Teacher; B.T. Assistant; refund of recovered amounts within six weeks; Clause 15 Letters Patent; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.A.(MD)No.2681 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal closed (appellants' challenge rejected) with no order as to costs; respondents' counsel not questioning refixation of scale of pay per G.O.(Ms).No.23; direction to the appellants to refund the amount already recovered from the respondent forthwith, in any event within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; connected Miscellaneous Petition C.M.P.(MD)No.18621 of 2024 closed. ¶41

The Director of School Education Vs R Keerthiga — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether recovery of the excess special pay paid to the respondent under G.O.(Ms).No.23, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 12.01.2011, over and above a period of five years, is permissible in law. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

In view of the law laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case), recovery of the excess amount over a period of five years is impermissible; hence the recovery sought from the respondent after about 13 years cannot stand.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The alleged excess payment cannot be recovered from the respondent; the appellants are directed to refund the amount already recovered from her forthwith, in any event within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.A.(MD)No.2681 of 2024, decided 20.01.2025 (M.S. Ramesh and A.D. Maria Clete, JJ.; judgment by M.S. Ramesh, J.). The education-department appellants, claiming the respondent teacher was wrongly awarded special pay under G.O.(Ms).No.23, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 12.01.2011 (notional benefit from 01.01.2006), passed an order dated 19.01.2024 seeking refixation of her pay and recovery of the excess paid; the respondent, appointed Secondary Grade Teacher on 08.01.1999 and promoted B.T. Assistant on 25.09.2008, had enjoyed the benefit for about 13 years. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 06.06.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.11843 of 2024, quashed that order relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case). On appeal, the Division Bench held, applying that precedent, that recovery of excess payment over and above five years is impermissible where not due to the employee's fault; directed refund of amounts already recovered within six weeks; left undisturbed the refixation of scale of pay per the G.O. (which the respondent's counsel did not question); and closed the writ appeal and connected C.M.P.(MD)No.18621 of 2024 with no order as to costs.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.2681 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE W.A.(MD)No.2681 of 2024

¶8

and

¶9

C.M.P.(MD)No.18621 of 2024

¶10

1.The Director of School Education,

¶11

O/o. The Director of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road,

¶12

Chennai.

¶13

2.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o. The Chief Educational Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

¶14

3.The District Educational Officer, O/o. The District Educational Officer, Anna Nagar, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶15

4.The Head Master, Government High School, A.Kalyamputhur, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. : Appellants Vs.

¶16

R.Keerthiga : Respondent

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.A.(MD)No.2681 of 2024

¶20

PRAYER:

¶21

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 06.06.2024 made in W.P. (MD)No.11843 of 2024.

¶22

For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok

¶23

Additional Government Pleader

¶24

For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

¶27

[ Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH, J.]

¶28

Challenge is made to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.06.2024 made in W.P.(MD)No.11843 of 2024.

¶29

2. Claiming that the respondent herein was wrongly awarded with the special pay under G.O.(Ms).No.23, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 12.01.2011, which provides for such grant of special pay notionally from 01.01.2006, the appellants herein had sought for refixation of her pay and for consequential recovery of the excess amount paid through the order dated 19.01.2024, which was impugned in the Writ Petition.

¶30

3. Learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the

¶31

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

¶32

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

¶33

2/6

¶34

W.A.(MD)No.2681 of 2024

¶35

Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih [White Washer's case] and had quashed the impugned order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in White Washer's case, has inter alia held that recovery of excess amount over and above a period of five years is impermissible in law, when such excess payment is not due to the fault of the concerned employee.

¶36

4. In the instant case, the respondent was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 08.01.1999 and promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant on 25.09.2008. The Government has passed orders in G.O.(Ms).No.23, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 12.01.2011, sanctioning special pay to the Secondary Grade Teachers notionally with effect from 01.01.2006. The benefits of G.O.(Ms)No.23, was extended to the respondent herein also. After about 13 years, the impugned order has been passed on 19.01.2024. In view of the law laid down in White Washer's case, such recovery over a period of five years, is impermissible.

¶37

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that he is not questioning the fixation of the scale of pay, insofar as the extension of benefits in G.O.(Ms).No.23, Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 12.01.2011 is concerned. Hence, no interference is required to that portion of the impugned order, whereby the petitioner's scale of pay has been re-fixed in accordance with G.O. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

3/6

¶39

W.A.(MD)No.2681 of 2024

¶40

(Ms).No.23. However, it is once again reiterated that the alleged excess payment cannot be recovered from the respondent herein. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the appellants herein to refund the amount already recovered from the respondent herein forthwith, in any event, within a period of six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

6. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶42

[M.S.R.,J.] & [A.D.M.C.,J.]

¶43

20.01.2025

¶44

Neutral Citation : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No MR

¶45

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

¶46

4/6