Partly allowed¶28

K.Munusamy v. the Principal District Judge

Recovery of excess pay – Wrong fixation of pay rectified by re-fixation

Madras HC12 Jun 2025WP/20522/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ petition (Art. 226) by K. Munusamy against the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri and the Treasury Officer, Dharmapuri challenging recovery of excess pay of Rs.1,29,226/- occasioned by wrong fixation of pay (01.01.2007 to 31.05.2022); recovery set aside relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case) AIR 2015 SC 696; re-fixation sustained; refund of recovered amounts within twelve weeks; petition partly allowed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Order of recovery alone set aside while sustaining the order of re-fixation; any amount recovered pursuant to the impugned orders to be repaid to the petitioner within twelve weeks; no order as to costs. ¶28

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

¶1

W.P.No.20522 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. 20522 of 2025

K. Munusamy

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri District Court, Dharmapuri.

¶12

The Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office, Dharmapuri. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Notice issued by the first respondent dated 31.05.2022 for recovery of excess pay and allowance from the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay for the period from 01.01.2007 to 31.05.2022 amounting to Rs.1,29,226/- from the petitioner and quash the same as illegal and direct the first respondent to refund the same.

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.20522 of 2025

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.Anand Subramanian, for R1

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.20522 of 2025

¶28

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

¶29

the order of re-fixation, the order of recovery alone is set aside. There shall

¶30

be no order as to costs.