← Library
Madras High CourtWP/12820/2014allowed

K.Balasubramanian, v. The Principal Secretary To

2025-10-24Honourable Mr.Justice K. Surender10 pages

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.12820 of 2014 a n d M.P.No.2 of 2014

1. K.Balasubramanian

2. Rajamanickam.S.P

3. Shanmuga Velayutham.K.S

4. Muthusamy.K.R

5. Veeramani.R

6. Nattudurai.M

7. Thevathas.A

8. Lawrance.V

9. Kanagaraju.M

10. Thangavelu.D

11. Abdul Basheer.S

12. Rajendran.G

13. Ravilakshmanan.S

14. Janarthanan.G

15. Muralikrishnan.V

16. Venkatachalapathi.S

17. Sayee Krishnan.R

18. Duraisamy.P

19. Gilbert Rajan, J 1/10

20. Mylsamy.R

21. Mohana Sundara Shanmugam.K

22. Gandhi.K

23. Chenniapan.K

24. Jeyachandran.N

25. Moorthi.M

26. Kumaresan.S

27. Ganesan.N

28. Ponnuswamy.A

29. Balakrishnan.M

30. Gnanaguru.A

31. Manivannan.S

32. Doraisamy.N

33. Perumalsamy.M

34. Krishnasamy.V

35. Vijayakumar.R

36. Madhiyazhakan.N

37. Ramamoorthy.N

38. Arunachalam.V.R

39. Manimuthu.S

40. Pounraja.R.M

41. Rajendran.A

42. Rathakrishnan.R

43. Durairaj.K

44. Nataraajhan.V

45. Ganesan.B

46. Jaisankar.M.G

47. Chellappan.V

48. M.Balakrishnasamy 2/10

49. R. Mohan

50. K.S.Mahendrakumar

51. K.Gunasekaran

52. A. Muthukrishnan

53. H. Suresh Kumar

54. C. Kanagarajan

55. V. Baladhandapani

56. L. Nagendiran

57. Vivekanandhan

58. K Ramasamy

59. V. Krishnamoorthy

60. V Ravikumar

61. R. Mahendiran

62. M. Yeganathan

63. O.S.Kuppusamy

64. K. Senathipathy

65. M.A.Murugesan

66. P. Veerukathan

67. C. Vairavasundaram

68. K. Veluswamy

69. K.M.Subramaniam

70. R. Prabhu

71. N. Muthukumarasamy

72. R. Jegadheesh

73. A.R.Ramakrishnan

74. N. Venkatachalam

75. S. Kesavan

76. A. Madhavamani ...

Petitioners 3/10

Vs

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

2. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd 37 Mettupalayam Road Coimbatore 641 043.

...

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 Memo 2960/P3/PD-II/TNSTC (CBE)/2014 dated 21/4/2014 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.

4/10

For petitioners ...

L. Chandrakumar For respondents ...

Mr.V.Nanmaran Additional Government Pleader for R.1 Mr.A.Sundaravadanam for R.2 - - - - -

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., on the file of the first respondent and Memo 2960/P3/PD-II/TNSTC (CBE)/2014 dated 21/4/2014 issued by the second respondent 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.

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 5/10

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.

3. Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, M.V.Nanmaran, Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.A.Sundaravadanam, 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 6/10

situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the 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.

7/10

(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 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 Memo 2960/P3/PD-II/TNSTC (CBE)/2014 dated 21/4/2014 issued by the second respondent is quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected 8/10

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

(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 (Coimbatore) Ltd 37 Mettupalayam Road Coimbatore 641 043.

K.SURENDER, J mvs.

9/10

24/10/2025 10/10