Dismissed¶31

The State of Tamil Nadu v. a. Vijayakumar

Service Law – Pay fixation and recovery of excess pay

Madras HC13 Jul 2026/1835/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Division Bench (S.M. Subramaniam & N. Senthilkumar JJ.), WA No. 1835 of 2026, decided 13-07-2026: State's writ appeal under Clause XV Letters Patent against order dated 06.10.2025 in WP No.36175 of 2024 dismissed; recovery of excess pay from retired Sub Inspector A. Vijayakumar after prolonged period impermissible per State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883; no misrepresentation, no recovery undertaking; refixation of pay per Pay Rules on representation.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; writ appeal dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition closed, upholding the writ Court's order against recovery; department to consider any representation by the respondent for refixation of pay in accordance with the Pay Rules. ¶31

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs a. Vijayakumar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether recovery of excess pay from the respondent, a retired Sub Inspector of Police, after a prolonged period was permissible. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The proposition that recovery of excess pay after a prolonged period is impermissible stands settled by the Supreme Court (State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih); accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the writ Court.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

No misrepresentation on the part of the respondent was established in the matter of refixation of pay, nor had the respondent given any undertaking to recover the excess amount by the department.

¶25

Key takeaways

Observation: the department is bound to fix pay in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders in force; if the respondent submits a representation, the authority is bound to refix pay in accordance with the Pay Rules applicable to the post and with reference to his service records.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law — Pay fixation and recovery of excess pay — Writ appeal by State of Tamil Nadu and police authorities against writ Court order declining recovery from respondent, a retired Sub Inspector of Police who superannuated on 30.09.2019 — Writ Court followed State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih ((2014) 8 SCC 883): recovery of excess pay impermissible after a prolonged period — No misrepresentation by respondent established in refixation of pay; no undertaking obtained from respondent to recover excess amount — No infirmity in writ Court order; proposition settled by Supreme Court — Writ appeal dismissed, no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed — Observation: department bound to fix pay per Pay Rules and Government Orders in force; representation by respondent for refixation to be considered and pay refixed per Pay Rules applicable to the post and service records.

¶1

WA No. 1835 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶7

WA No. 1835 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 16624 OF 2026

¶8

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home (Police) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 009.

¶9

The Director General of Police (L and O) (Head of Police Force), Office of the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 004.

¶10

The Commissioner of Police Vepery, Chennai.

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner of Police Headquarters, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai.

¶12

The Joint Commissioner of Police Traffic Zone ( South), Chennai.

¶13

..Appellants

¶14

¶15

A. Vijayakumar S/o. Late Aharone, Sub Inspector of Police (Retired), S.I. No.10367, M-3/17, New A.R. Police Quarters, Pudhupettai, Chennai District - 002.

¶16

..Respondent

¶17

__________ Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

WA No. 1835 of 2026

¶20

Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 06.10.2025 made in WP No.36175 of 2024 .

¶21

For Appellants :	Dr.R.Gouri, Government Counsel
For Respondent:	Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan

¶22

Judgment

¶23

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶24

State preferred the present writ appeal challenging the order dated 06.10.2025 made in W.P.No.36175 of 2024, wherein the order of pay fixation and recovery came to be challenged by the respondent employee.

¶25

The writ Court, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab -vs- Rafiq Masih ((2014) 8 SCC 883 held that recovery of excess pay made is impermissible after a prolonged period. In the present case, the respondent retired as Sub Inspector of Police on 30.09.2019 on attaining his age of superannuation. That apart, no misrepresentation on the part of the respondent was established in the matter of refixation of pay, nor the respondent has given any undertaking to recover the excess amount by the department. In those circumstances, the writ Court held that the recovery of excess pay after a prolonged period is impermissible.

¶26

The said proposition has already been settled by the Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the writ Court.

¶27

Page2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

WA No. 1835 of 2026

¶30

However, regarding refixation of pay, the department is bound to fix the pay in accordance with the Pay Rules and the Government Orders in force. In this regard, if any representation is submitted by the respondent, that may be considered and the authority is bound to refix the pay in accordance with the Pay Rules as applicable to the post and with reference to his service records.

¶31