The Commissioner, Vs S.Raghavendiran — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The Commissioner, Vs S.Raghavendiran — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the Writ Court's order in favour of the petitioners (recovery impermissible) stands undisturbed; writ appeals dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery of the excess payment made to the petitioners, which was not attributable to any fault of theirs, can be permitted.

Court's answer

Recovery of the excess payment from the petitioners is impermissible: the Lab Assistants belonged to Class IV (Group D) service, the payments were made pursuant to the Government Orders, no fault is attributable to them, and recovery would cause difficulty/hardship to them.

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Court approached the matter in the right perspective, based on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)'s case, and ordered in favour of the petitioners; accordingly the writ appeals did not require interference and stood dismissed with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law - Recovery of excess pay - Laboratory Assistants in Class IV (Group 'D') service, appointed with S.S.L.C. qualification, paid higher grade pay pursuant to Government Orders (G.O.Ms.No.63, G.O.Ms.No.220, Govt. letter No.63305/PC/10-1, G.O.Ms.No.314) - subsequent cancellation/revision and clarification letter dated 31.12.2013 seeking recovery for 01.03.2011 to 30.06.2014, including from retirement benefits of superannuated employees - Writ Court by order dated 24.02.2020 in W.P.(MD) Nos.21133 to 21137 of 2014 ordered in favour of petitioners - Writ Appeals by Commissioner/Director of Technical Education DISMISSED. Applying State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, and High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jaghdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, the Court held that recovery of excess payment made under Government Orders, without fault attributable to Class IV employees, is impermissible as it would cause them difficulty.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 24.02.2020 of the Writ Court (Madras High Court, Madurai Bench) in W.P.(MD) Nos.21133 to 21137 of 2014, whereby the Writ Court ordered in favour of the petitioners (recovery of excess pay impermissible).¶25
Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (Writ Court) · 24.02.2020
Prior proceeding
Petitioners were originally appointed as Laboratory Assistants with minimum qualification of pass in S.S.L.C. as per G.O.Ms.No.63, Finance, dated 26.02.2011; they worked about 30 years as Lab Assistants with grade pay fixed at Rs.2,400/-.¶31
Prior proceeding
Government letter No.63305/PC/10-1, Finance, dated 08.01.2010 prescribed higher grade pay for selection and special grades, namely Rs.4,200/- and Rs.4,400/- respectively, as per proceedings dated 19.12.2011 with effect from 01.01.2006.¶31
Prior proceeding
The third respondent cancelled the said grade pay and revised the pay of the petitioners as per G.O.Ms.No.314, Finance, dated 22.07.2013.¶31
Prior proceeding
By clarification letter No.41134/A3/2013 dated 31.12.2013, the first respondent sought recovery of the excess amount from the petitioners for the period 01.03.2011 to 30.06.2014; this clarification letter was impugned before the Writ Court.¶31
Prior proceeding
Per the third respondent: pay of Lab Assistant was fixed at Rs.5,200 - 20,200 + 2,600 with effect from 01.08.2010 under G.O.Ms.No.338, Finance (Pay Cell), dated 26.08.2010; benefit implemented from 01.03.2011 per G.O.Ms.No.63 dated 26.02.2011; G.O.Ms.No.314 dated 22.07.2013 given effect from 01.04.2013 and received on 15.07.2014, hence payment during that period was sought to be recovered.¶36
Prior proceeding
As some petitioners had reached superannuation, respondents 1 and 2 sought to recover the excess amount from their retirement benefits.¶36
Prior proceeding
Writ petitions (W.P.(MD) Nos.21133 to 21137 of 2014) were disposed of by order dated 24.02.2020 ordering in favour of the petitioners, against which these writ appeals under Clause 15 of Letter Patent were filed.¶25