| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 4568
|
| Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court |
| Case No : W.P(MD)Nos. 15202, 15374, 15529, 15732, 15747, 15842, 15851, 15905, 15907, 15908, 10870, 10871, 10872, 10873, 10875, 12977, 13601 & 12379 of 2026 & W.M.P(MD)Nos. 11384, 11385, 11523, 11524, 11626, 11811, 11812, 11853, 11867, 11921, 11925, 11929, 11932, 8469, 8470, 8498, 8499, 8521, 8522, 8482, 8484, 8472, 8474, 9722, 10123, 10124, 9365 & 9367 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN |
| Parties : M. Padma Versus The Additional Registrar General, Madras High Court - Madurai Bench, Madurai & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: V. Sundari, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R2 & R4, M. Mahaboob Athif, Advocate, R3, R5 & R6, S. Venkatesh, for State. |
| Date of Judgment : 15-06-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
2. Catch Words:
- Writ of Certiorari
- Writ of Mandamus
- Recovery
- Refund
- Quash
- Pay fixation
- Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service
3. Summary:
The petitioners challenged the recovery of Rs.41,118 ordered after a re‑fixation of their pay, seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus under Article 226. The court noted that the issue was not res integra, relying on Supreme Court precedents that excess payments made due to employer error cannot be recovered from employees, especially those in Group C and D categories. The additional increment was granted under the rules then applicable and later deemed excess only because of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations. Since the error lay with the employer and not the employees, recovery was impermissible. Consequently, the recovery proceedings were quashed and any amount already deducted was ordered to be refunded. No costs were awarded and related miscellaneous petitions were closed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order No.12 of 2025 dated 06.11.2025 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to recover the sum of Rs.41,118/- from the petitioner's salary and refund the amount already recovered from petitioner till date within a stipulated period of time.)
Common Order:
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
1. Challenging the orders of re-fixation and the consequential recovery, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions.
2. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same and the facts are also identical, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the grievance of the petitioners is confined only to the recovery ordered pursuant to the re-fixation of pay and that they are not challenging the orders of re-fixation.
4. The said submission is placed on record.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.(MD) No.14802 of 2020, dated 28.04.2026 [M. Kayambu v. The District Munsif and Others], has taken a different view and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. Admittedly, the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475, held that where excess payment has been made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating pay or allowances, or on account of an erroneous interpretation of a rule or order, recovery of such excess payment cannot ordinarily be effected from the employee.
8. In the decision relied upon by the respondents, the Division Bench observed that the writ petitioner therein was originally in the pay band of Rs.3,050-4,900 and upon conferment of Selection Grade, became entitled to additional increments. While the upper limit of the pay band remained unchanged, the petitioner's basic pay ought to have been revised from Rs.3,050/- to Rs.3,200/-. However, his pay band was erroneously fixed at Rs.4,000-6,000. It was in those peculiar facts and circumstances that the Division Bench declined to interfere.
9. In the present case, the issue relates to the grant of an increment based on the statutory provisions prevailing at the relevant point of time. It appears that an additional increment was granted under the applicable rules and was subsequently treated as excess in view of the implementation of the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. Thus, the alleged excess payment arose solely on account of an error committed by the employer in fixation of pay and not due to any misrepresentation or fault on the part of the petitioners.
10. Admittedly, the petitioners belong to Group 'C' and Group 'D' service categories in the Judicial Department, as the case may be. It is well settled, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, that recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) is impermissible in law. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The respondents have already re-fixed the pay of the petitioners, and the petitioners have no grievance insofar as such re-fixation is concerned. Their challenge is confined only to the recovery ordered pursuant thereto.
11. In view of the above, the impugned proceedings are quashed insofar as they relate to recovery. If any amount has already been recovered from the petitioners pursuant to the impugned proceedings, the same shall be refunded to them.
12. With the above direction, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
|
| |
