G.Krishnan v. The Registrar General
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No. 33988 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.36798 & 36799 of 2024 G.Krishnan
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, High Court Campus, Chennai - 104.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Court-V) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
3.The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.
4.The Principal Accountant General, (A&E) AG's Office (Audit) Complex, Anna Salai, Roast Rever Garden, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
5.The District Treasury Officer, Dharmapuri.
1/6
6.The Special Sub Judge, (MACT) Sub-Court, Dharmapuri District.
...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records of the 6th respondent in connection with proceedings ROC No.Nil/ 2022 dated 20.10.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to continue to pay at the existing fixation of pay and not recovering the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Selvam For Respondents : Mr.V.Vasanthakumar, Standing Counsel *****
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) Challenge is to the order dated 20.10.2022, in and by which, the salary disbursement Officer / The Special Sub Judge, (MACT) Sub-Court, Dharmapuri District, had directed recovery of a sum of Rs.69,443/- from the petitioner in 36 monthly installments. Recovery was ordered based on the audit objections made by the Audit Wing of the High Court, on the ground that the petitioner was sanctioned with inadmissible increment. In and by the very same proceedings, the salary disbursement Officer had also re-fixed 2/6
the salary of the petitioner, after allowing the admissible increments.
2. The main ground of challenge to the order is that recovery cannot be made. The question of recovery is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer's case) reported in AIR 2015 SC 696. A Division Bench of this Court in P.Ponnusamy Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras made in W.P.No.8952 etc., batch of 2023 dated 04.03.2024 has, after referring to the relevant precedents on the point held that recovery cannot be made, but, the Division Bench in the said judgment has also pointed out, re-fixation that has been done in accordance with pay rules shall be sustained. The said judgment, in our opinion, squarely covers the issue raised in this writ petition also.
3. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is partly allowed, quashing the order to the extent that it directs recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner. The re-fixation done is sustained. If any recovery had been made, the amount recovered alone shall be repaid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No 3/6
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.) 21.02.2025 dsa Index : No : No Speaking order 4/6
To:
1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, High Court Campus, Chennai - 104.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Court-V) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
3.The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.
4.The Principal Accountant General, (A&E) AG's Office (Audit) Complex, Anna Salai, Roast Rever Garden, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
5.The District Treasury Officer, Dharmapuri.
6.The Special Sub Judge, (MACT) Sub-Court, Dharmapuri District.
5/6
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
dsa W.P.No. 33988 of 2024 21.02.2025 6/6