Disposed

Chinnathambi a v. The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu (a and E)

Madras HC19 Nov 2025WP(MD)/26226/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired employee challenged recovery of excess pay paid over 01.08.2010 to 30.04.2025 following post-retirement pay re-fixation. Applying the Supreme Court's principle in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih that no recovery is permissible after superannuation, the court directed refund of the recovered amount, while permitting the respondents to refix salary after a hearing.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chinnathambi a Vs The Principal Accountant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.26226 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.26226 of 2025 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)No.20426 of 2025

¶8

A.Chinnathambi ...Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu (A and E),

¶11

Office of the Principal Accountant General (A and E), 361, Anna Salai,

¶12

Chennai - 600 018.

¶13

2.The Deputy Director of Medical Services (Leprosy), Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi - 628 001.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. /A1/2025 dated 15.05.2025 and the consequential impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. /A1/2025 dated Nil.05.2025 in respect of the alleged re-fixation and recovery of excess payment due to wrongful fixation of pay increment for the period from 01.08.2010 to

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.26226 of 2025

¶19

30.04.2025 amounting to Rs.3,52,992/- and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the second respondent to refund that sum of Rs.3,52,992/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pradeep For R1 : M/s.S.Mahalakshmi Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This writ petition has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. /A1/2025 dated 15.05.2025 and the consequential impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. /A1/2025 dated Nil. 05.2025 in respect of the alleged re-fixation and recovery of excess payment due to wrongful fixation of pay increment for the period from 01.08.2010 to 30.04.2025 amounting to Rs.3,52,992/- and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.26226 of 2025

¶26

justice and consequently to direct the second respondent to refund that sum of Rs.3,52,992/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶27

2. The order of recovery has been made based on the re-fixation of pay after the retirement of the petitioner from service. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs.Rafiq Masih (White Washer) , no recovery can be effected after superannuation of the employee. Hence, the recovery made by the respondents from the petitioner is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated supra.

¶28

3. In view of the same, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner. However, the respondents are at liberty to refix the petitioner's salary after affording him an opportunity of hearing. Such exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order shall not preclude the respondents from disbursing the pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

¶29

3/5

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.26226 of 2025

¶32

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

19.11.2025

¶34

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Sn

¶35

To:

¶36

1.The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu (A and E), Office of the Principal Accountant General (A and E), 361, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 018.

¶37

2.The Deputy Director of Medical Services (Leprosy), Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi - 628 001.

¶38

4/5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.26226 of 2025

¶41

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶42

¶43

W.P.(MD).No.26226 of 2025

¶44

19.11.2025

¶45

5/5

¶46

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

Chinnathambi a v. The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu (a and E)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chinnathambi a v. The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu (a and E)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Jeeva Kumar Vs The Managing Director

Chakkaravarthy G Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Samuelraj Vs The Director of Elementary Education

Selvi Vs The Chief General Manager

Rajasekar Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Chandra Bose Vs The Principal Secretary to government