N.Periyasamy Vs the Principal District Judge — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

N.Periyasamy Vs the Principal District Judge — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Recovery orders set aside while the re-fixation is sustained; any amount recovered pursuant to the impugned order to be repaid/refunded to the petitioner within twelve (12) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.20869 of 2025) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of recovery (Rs.1,70,132/- by order dated 26.05.2023 in ROC.No.12 of 2023, and Rs.1,77,250/- by order dated 08.08.2024 in ROC.No.10523 of 2024), passed consequent upon re-fixation of the petitioner's erroneously fixed salary, can be sustained, given that the petitioner is a Group-C employee. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the petitioner is admittedly a Group-C employee, the recovery is governed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case), AIR 2015 SC 696; in view of that pronouncement, the order of recovery cannot be sustained.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner cannot make a grievance on the re-fixation, as his pay was admittedly erroneously fixed; the re-fixation made is accordingly sustained.

Key takeaways

While sustaining the re-fixation made, the order of recovery alone is set aside, and any amount recovered pursuant to the impugned order shall be repaid to the petitioner within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recovery of excess salary paid due to wrong pay fixation — Group-C employee — re-fixation of pay sustained, but orders of recovery (Rs.1,70,132/- by order dated 26.05.2023 in ROC.No.12 of 2023; Rs.1,77,250/- by order dated 08.08.2024 in ROC.No.10523 of 2024) held unsustainable in view of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case), AIR 2015 SC 696 — amounts recovered pursuant to the impugned orders directed to be repaid to the petitioner within twelve weeks — Writ Petition disposed of, no costs, connected miscellaneous petition closed.

W.P.No.18627 of 2025

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

W.P.No.18627 of 2025

and

W.M.P.No.20869 of 2025

N.Periyasamy

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri District Court, Krishnagiri.

2.The Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai Sub-Court, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office, Krishnagiri.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in ROC.No.12 of 2023

1/5

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

W.P.No.18627 of 2025

dated 26.05.2023 to recover Rs.1,70,132/- and the further order passed by the 1^st respondent in ROC.No.10523 of 2024 dated 08.08.2024 to recover Rs.1,77,250/- and quash the same as illegal and direct the 1^st respondent to refund a sum of Rs.1,77,250/- recovered from the petitioner, being the excess pay and allowance due to wrong fixation of pay for the period from 01.07.2013 to 30.04.2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran

For Respondents : Ms.P.Selvi

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

Challenge is to the order of recovery passed by the 2^nd respondent,

consequent upon re-fixation of the salary of the petitioner, which was erroneously fixed.

2. Admittedly the petitioner is a Group - C employee. Therefore,

recovery is governed by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case) reported in AIR 2015 SC 696. In view of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble

2/5

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

W.P.No.18627 of 2025

Supreme Court, the order of recovery cannot be sustained. The petitioner

cannot make a grievance on the re-fixation, as admittedly hia pay was erroneously fixed.

3. Therefore, while sustaining the re-fixation made, the order of

recovery alone is set aside. Any amount recovered pursuant to the order impugned, shall be re-paid to the petitioner within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4 . With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of .

No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(R.S.M.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.) dsa 11.06.2025 Index : No Internet : Yes Neutral Citation : No Speaking order

3/5

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

W.P.No.18627 of 2025

To

1.The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri District Court, Krishnagiri.

2.The Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai Sub-Court, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri District.

3.The Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office, Krishnagiri.

4/5

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

W.P.No.18627 of 2025

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

dsa

W.P.No.18627 of 2025

11.06.2025

5/5

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