The State of Tamil Nadu Vs C. Ramesh — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs C. Ramesh — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants; the writ order dated 14.08.2025 in W.P. No. 30385 of 2025 stands (refixation confirmed, recovery set aside, refund of the amount already recovered upheld); writ appeal dismissed without costs and the connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ order dated 14.08.2025 in W.P. No. 30385 of 2025 - confirming the refixation of the first respondent's pay and setting aside the recovery of excess salary with a consequential refund direction - is infirm and liable to be set aside in the State's writ appeal. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court does not find any infirmity in the writ order dated 14.08.2025 in W.P. No. 30385 of 2025.

Ratio / Principle

The refixation of pay made by the department stands confirmed, since the employee is eligible to receive the pay in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders in force.

Key takeaways

As no misrepresentation is established against the employee in respect of the excess salary paid, the employee is entitled to refund of the amount already recovered, in view of the ratio laid down by the Courts.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Division Bench: S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar, JJ.) - WA No. 2016 of 2026 and CMP No. 17511 of 2026, decided 22-07-2026 - Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent by the State of Tamil Nadu and police authorities against the writ order dated 14.08.2025 in W.P. No. 30385 of 2025 - Service law - Erroneous fixation of pay of a retired Sub Inspector of Police following an audit objection - Recovery of excess salary - The writ Court had confirmed the refixation, set aside the recovery, and directed refund of the amount already recovered pursuant to the order of recovery - Held: no infirmity in the writ order; the refixation made by the department stands confirmed since the employee is eligible to receive pay in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders in force; no misrepresentation established against the employee, who is therefore entitled to refund of the amount already recovered, in view of the ratio laid down by the Courts - Writ appeal dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

WA No. 2016 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

WA No. 2016 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 17511 OF 2026

The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home (Police) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 9.

The Director General Of Police L And O (Head of Police Force), Office of the Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 4.

The Commissioner Of Police Vepery, Chennai.

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

..Appellants

Vs

C.Ramesh S/o A.Chockalingam Sub Inspector of Police (Retired) SSI No.9333, Old No.37/2, New No.24 Palayappan Street, Seven Wells, Chennai-01.

The Principal Accountant General (a And E) Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Chennai.

..Respondents

__________ Page1 of 4

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

WA No. 2016 of 2026

Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 14.08.2025 made in W.P. No. 30385 of 2025

For Appellants :	Dr.R.Gouri, Government Counsel
For Respondents :	Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan for R1

Judgment

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

The present writ appeal has been instituted by the State challenging the

writ order dated 14.08.2025 in W.P.No.30385 of 2025.

With the consent of the parties, the writ appeal is taken up for final hearing.

Based on the audit objection regarding erroneous fixation of pay in favour of the first respondent, recovery proceedings are initiated . The writ Court, while considering the issue, confirmed the refixation, but set aside the recovery. A consequential direction was issued to refund the amount already recovered pursuant to the order of recovery.

This Court does not find any infirmity in the said order. It is made clear that the refixation made by the department stands confirmed since the

Page2 of 4

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

WA No. 2016 of 2026

employee is eligible to receive the pay in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders in force. However, in respect of the excess salary paid to an employee, there is no misrepresentation established and thus, the employee is entitled for refund of the amount already recovered in view of the ratio laid down by the Courts.

Hence, the writ appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 22-07-2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

KST

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WA No. 2016 of 2026

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR J.

KST

To

The Principal Accountant General (A and E) Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Chennai.

WA No. 2016 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 17511 OF 2026

22-07-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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