Partly allowed¶30

C.Ramachandran v. the Registrar General

Madras HC12 Jun 2025WP/20377/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery of excess pay Rs.2,92,333/- after refixation of erroneously fixed salary set aside by Madras High Court relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case), AIR 2015 SC 696; re-fixation sustained; repayment of recovered amounts ordered within twelve weeks; writ petition partly allowed (C. Ramachandran v. Registrar General, High Court, Madras and Principal District Judge, Villupuram; decided 12.06.2025).

What did the court decide?

Orders of recovery set aside while the re-fixation is sustained; any amount already recovered pursuant to the impugned orders to be repaid to the petitioner within twelve weeks; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶30

C.Ramachandran Vs the Registrar General — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,92,333/- from the petitioner, consequent upon refixation of his erroneously fixed salary, is sustainable. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The issue of recovery is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case), AIR 2015 SC 696; accordingly, while sustaining the re-fixation, the court set aside the orders of recovery.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

No grievance remains for the petitioner as regards the refixation, since the wrong fixation has been rectified; the re-fixation is therefore sustained.

¶26

Key takeaways

Any amount recovered pursuant to the orders impugned in the writ petition shall be repaid to the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, W.P.No.20377 of 2025 (decided 12.06.2025; bench: R. Subramanian and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ.; order by R. Subramanian, J.). The petitioner challenged recovery proceedings in D.No.1549/2025 dated 05.03.2025 issued by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram (second respondent), in pursuance of A.No.770/2024 dated 31.12.2024, for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.2,92,333/- following refixation of his erroneously fixed salary. Holding the recovery issue covered by State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case), AIR 2015 SC 696, the court sustained the re-fixation (the wrong fixation having been rectified) but set aside the orders of recovery, directing that any amount recovered pursuant to the impugned orders be repaid to the petitioner within twelve weeks. Writ petition partly allowed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P.No.20377 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶7

Writ Petition No. 20377 of 2025 and WMP No.22968 of 2025

C.Ramachandran

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Registrar General, High Court, Madras 104.

¶12

The Principal District Judge, Villupuram. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the recovery proceedings in D.No.1549/2025 dated 05.03.2025 made in pursuance of proceedings in A.No.770/2024 dated 31.12.2024 issued by second respondent for recovery of excess pay and allwance of Rs.2,92,333/- from the petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to the petitioner.

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.20377 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Tamilselvan

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.R.Sunilkumar, for RR 1 & 2

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

Challenge is to the order of recovery passed by the second

¶23

respondent, consequent upon refixation of the salary of the petitoner, which was erroneously fixed.

¶24

As regards the recovery, the issue is covered by the judgment of the

¶25

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih

¶26

(White Washer's case) reported in AIR 2015 SC 696. As regards the refixation, we do not see any grievance for the petitioner as the wrong fixation has been rectified. Hence, while sustaining the re-fixation, we only set aside the orders of recovery. Any amount recovered pursuant to the orders impugned in this writ petition, the same shall be repaid to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.20377 of 2025

¶30

3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is partly allowed, while sustaining

¶31

the order of re-fixation, the order of recovery alone is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition

¶32

is closed.

¶33

(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)(K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.) 12.06.2025

¶34

¶35

Index: No Speaking order Neutral Citation: No

¶36

¶37