S.Gowri Sankar v. The Secretary To Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24/10/2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K. SURENDER Writ Petition No.12819 of 2014 a n d M.P.No.2 of 2014

1. S. Gowri Sankar

2. V. Shanmuga Sundaram

3. R. Ponmudi

4. P. Vishnu

5. R. Muniappan

6. V. Ravi

7. M. Ponnurangam

8. S. Chandrasekaran

9. V. Panneerselvam

10. V. Kaiarasu

11. P. Rajamani

12. K. Pandi

13. P. Anbalagan

14. J. Rajayapandiyan

15. G. Natarajan

16. K. Swarnalatha

17. K. Senthil

18. A. Ganapathi

19. K. Selvam 1/11

20. P. Mani

21. S. Duraisami

22. A. Krishnamoorthy

23. K. Mohamed Nazar

24. S. Sridharan

25. D. Jayabalan

26. P. Thangam

27. R. Kumar

28. A. Anandaraj

29. M. Durgaisamy

30. V. Govindaraj

31. D. Vijayasankar

32. T. Karthikeyan

33. R. Ragavan

34. C. Rajasundar

35. S. Radhakrishnan

36. Parthiban.N.

37. R. Velmurugan

38. K. Karunanithi (CDL)

39. G. Uthayakumar

40. R. Rajendran

41. V. Gunasekaran

42. S. Muruganandam

43. K. Sekharraj

44. C. Selvaraj

45. M.S.Sivakama Sundari

46. C. Selvam

47. A. Muruganantham

48. T. Manivannan 2/11

49. Selvaraju.R

50. Sivakumar.T

51. S.K.Selvanayagam (VLR)

52. T.G.Rajendran

53. Gajendiran.M

54. E. Govindaraj

55. K.Dasarathan

56. N. Jayamoorthy

57. K. Kannan

58. R. Eswaran

59. J. Balakumar

60. K. Krishnan

61. K. Ponnupandi

62. S. Natesan

63. M. Yuvaraj

64. R. Raghuraman

65. M.S.Vijayakumaran

66. J. Kailasam

67. Baghyalakshmi

68. D.S.Vincent (TVM)

69. K. Sundaravaradan

70. S. Sivasankaran

71. K. Selvakumar

72. M. Ravi

73. K.S.Kannan

74. M.Sumathi Samundeeswari

75. Venugopalan K.P.D

76. V. Rajan

77. V. Baskaran 3/11

78. N. Nagenderan (KPM)

79. S. Ramakrishnan

80. S. Sivakumar

81. R. Natarajan

82. Vincent.A

83. N. Venkitasamu

84. A. Ramesh

85. S. Ethiraj

86. J. Jayapriya

87. M. Rajasekar

88. K. Elangovan

89. A. Thiyagarajan

90. K. Bhama

91. Sundaravaradan.V

92. R. Srinivasan

93. S. Chandrasekaran

94. S. Venkatesan

95. Ramu.K

96. A. Thanulingam (TVL)

97. S. Velvikavalaperumal

98. A. Sugumar ...

Petitioners Vs

1. The Secretary to Government Transport Department Fort St. George Chennai 9.

4/11

2. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd Vazhutha Reddy Post Villupuram District.

...

Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in G.O.Ms.No.40 Transport (D) Dept. dated 16/4/2014 on the file of the first respondent and consequential Office Order No.014/00014/E1/TNSTC(VPM)/2010 dated 22/4/2014 issued by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to pay House Rent Allowance drawn by the petitioners all along from 1/6/2009 as per G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (PC) Dept dated 1/6/2009.

For petitioners ...

L. Chandrakumar For respondents ...

Mr.V.Nanmaran Additional Government Pleader for R.1 Mr.M.Aswin for R.2 5/11

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order, dated 16/4/2014 passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.40 Transport (D) Dept., and consequential Office Order dated 22/4/2014 issued by the second respondent in No.014/00014/E1/TNSTC(VPM)/2010 and consequently, direct the respondents to pay House Rent Allowance drawn by the petitioners all along from 1/6/2009, as per G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (PC) Department dated 1/6/2009.

2. All the petitioners have retired in the cadres of Assistant Manager, Deputy Manager, Senior Deputy Manager and Manager from the respondent Corporation during 2016 itself. The grievance of the petitioners is that initially letters were issued by the Government for the recovery of House Rent Allowance, which were drawn by the petitioners who were in the managerial cadre and the same was regulated with effect from 1/6/2009, after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.40 Transport Department dated 16/4/2014. 6/11

3. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, M.V.Nanmaran, Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.M.Aswin, learned counsel for the second respondent.

4. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners have retired 10 years ago and the amount which was quantified as excess payment is about Rs.15,000/- to Rs.25,000/-, which is not disputed by the respondents. This Court, vide, order dated 29/4/2014, had granted interim orders restricting any kind of recovery from the petitioners at the time of admission.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.12, in STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) AND OTHERS (2015) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 334) has laid down the following guidelines for effecting recovery:

"12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the 7/11

employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i).

Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii). Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery.

(iii). Recovery from the 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 8/11

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 iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

6. Following the above directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that nearly ten years, after retirement, the Government should not effect any kind of recovery. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 16/4/2014 passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.40 Transport (D) Dept., and consequential Office Order dated 22/4/2014 issued by the second respondent in No.014/00014/E1/TNSTC(VPM)/2010 are quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 9/11

(K.SURENDER,J) 24th October, 2025 mvs.

Index: Yes/No To

1. The Secretary to Government Transport Department Fort St. George Chennai 9.

2. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd Vazhutha Reddy Post Villupuram District.

K.SURENDER, J mvs.

10/11

24/10/2025 11/11