D.Vazhivitta Selvakumar Vs the Registrar General — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

D.Vazhivitta Selvakumar Vs the Registrar General — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: recovery order set aside (re-fixation sustained); any amount recovered pursuant to the impugned order to be re-paid to the petitioner within twelve (12) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.21425 of 2025) closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of recovery passed by the 3rd respondent, consequent upon re-fixation of the petitioner's erroneously fixed salary, can be sustained. +1 more

Court's answer

As the petitioner is admittedly a Group-C employee, recovery is governed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (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 admittedly his pay was erroneously fixed; the re-fixation is sustained.

Key takeaways

While sustaining the re-fixation made, the order of recovery alone is set aside.ratio¶34
Any amount recovered pursuant to the impugned order shall be re-paid to the petitioner within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (R. Subramanian and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ.; order by R. Subramanian, J.), W.P.No.19150 of 2025 (with W.M.P.No.21425 of 2025), disposed of on 11.06.2025. Petitioner, a Group-C employee whose salary was erroneously fixed at the time he entered service and was later re-fixed, challenged the recovery order dated 24.08.2022 in proceeding No.44(a)/2022 passed by the Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur, seeking quashing thereof and refund of Rs.2,29,606/-. Holding that recovery from a Group-C employee is governed by State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (AIR 2015 SC 696), the Court found the recovery unsustainable, sustained the re-fixation (pay having been admittedly erroneously fixed), set aside the order of recovery alone, and directed re-payment of the recovered amount within twelve weeks; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

W.P.No.19150 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.19150 of 2025 and

W.M.P.No.21425 of 2025

D.Valivitta Selvakumar

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Registrar General, High Court Madras – 104.

2.The Principal District Judge, Tiruppur.

3.The Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur.

4.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur.

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of recovery order in proceeding No.44(a)/2022 dated 24.08.2022 passed by the

1/5

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

3 rd

W.P.No.19150 of 2025

3^rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount of Rs.2,29,606/- to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Tamilselvan For Respondents : Mr.John J.Raja Singh

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 3^rd respondent,

consequent upon re-fixation of the salary of the petitioner, which was erroneously fixed at the time when he entered the service.

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 Supreme Court, the order of recovery cannot be sustained. The petitioner cannot make a grievance on the re-fixation, as admittedly his pay was erroneously fixed.

2/5

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

W.P.No.19150 of 2025

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.19150 of 2025

To

1.The Registrar General,

High Court Madras – 104.

2.The Principal District Judge, Tiruppur.

3.The Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur.

4.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur.

4/5

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

W.P.No.19150 of 2025

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

dsa

W.P.No.19150 of 2025

11.06.2025

5/5

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