A retired Group-D PWD employee challenged recovery of excess grade pay from his retirement benefits following reduction of his Grade Pay. The court held he fell within Rafiq Masih's protected categories and that no undertaking bound him, set aside the impugned order, and directed refund of the recovered amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 29005 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ WP No. 29005 of 2022
T.G.Balachandran (Senior Citizen) S/o.Govindasamy, No.8, Vignesh Nagar, Kollumedu Village, Chennai-600 062.
..Petitioner
Vs
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
Page1 of 9
WP No. 29005 of 2022
order of the 5th respondent made in Proceedings No.121M / U.Che.Po. / Ka.Pa. U.Ko.3 / Ma. Pa. / 2022 dated 11.07.2022, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.1,46,336/- which was recovered from the retirement benefits of the petitioner.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Subramani For Respondent(s): MR. V.Jeevagiridharan, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.07.2022, whereby consequent to the reduction in petitioner’s Grade Pay from Rs.4,400/- to Rs.2,800/- a sum of Rs.1,46,336/- was found to be due and the same was sought to be recovered from his retirement benefit. The same is challenged by the petitioner as being illegal, unjustified and arbitrary.
the posts held by the petitioner did not provide any avenue for promotion, he
Page2 of 9
WP No. 29005 of 2022
was also paid the higher grade of pay at Rs.4,400/- instead of Rs.2,800/- during the period 01.04.2013 to 31.10.2015. Petitioner would further submit that he is a Group-D employer and that the impugned order seeking recovery is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. made in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 (White Washer case) .
01/4/2013 Kjy; bgw jFjpa[ilath; vd;Wk; gpw;fhyj;jpy; ,e;j Cjpa eph;zak; jtW vd bjhpathpd; mj;bjhif Cjpaj;jpy; KGtJk; gpoj;jk; bra;ag;gLk; vdt[k; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ. ”
Page3 of 9
WP No. 29005 of 2022
recovery of the excess pay, due to erroneous fixation of Grade Pay vide letter dated 26.11.2015.
“8. The order of the High Court has been challenged in these proceedings. From the record of the proceedings, it is evident that when the Respondent opted for the revised pay scale, he furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would be liable to refund any excess payment made to him. In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the Respondent in these proceedings, this position has been specifically admitted. Subsequently, when the rules were revised and notified on 7 May 2003 it was found that a payment in excess had been made to the Respondent. On 18 February 2004, the excess payment was sought to be recovered in terms of the undertaking.
9. The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has
Page4 of 9
WP No. 29005 of 2022
retired from the service of the state. This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted. While opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the Respondent was clearly on notice of the fact that a future re-fixation or revision may warrant an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made.
10. In State of Punjab & Ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:
“(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be
__________ Page5 of 9
WP No. 29005 of 2022
iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” (emphasis supplied).
11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.”
payments have been mistakenly made by an employer, recovery by the employer may not be permissible in the following circumstances:
“(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who
are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would
Page6 of 9
WP No. 29005 of 2022
be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.”
would squarely be covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in White Washer ’s case for the following reasons.
the revised fixation of the Grade Pay wherein the petitioner agreed to refund.
He was only placed on notice that payment of excess grade pay would be recovered from the salary. But what is now sought to be recovered is the excess payment from the retirement benefits and thus even the proceedings dated 29.12.2014 which is sought to be relied upon may not be of any assistance.
Page7 of 9
WP No. 29005 of 2022
There shall be no order as to costs.
11-03-2026
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
jv
To
__________ Page8 of 9
WP No. 29005 of 2022
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
jv
WP No. 29005 of 2022
11-03-2026
__________ Page9 of 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery of excess grade pay from a retired Group-D employee's retirement benefits is permissible under the Rafiq Masih principles.
Whether an employer notice of possible recovery suffices in place of an employee's undertaking to permit recovery.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.Relied on¶9
Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014
High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jagdev SinghDistinguished¶8
Civil Appeal No.3500 of 2006
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.G.Balachandran
The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department
The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department
The Chief Engineer (Buildings), Public Works Department
The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department
Mohammed Shaffiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
