S.Gnanamuthu v. The Registrar General

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No. 35210 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos. 38123 & 38124 of 2024 S.Gnanamuthu

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras - 600104.

2.The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore 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 Office Order C.No.O/o No.30/2024 dated 14.05.2024 ordered by the 2nd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,20,870/- from the petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to remit back the recovered amount to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Tamilselvan For Respondents : Ms.B.Poonguzali for R1 & R2 1/4

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) Challenge is to the order dated 14.05.2024, in and by which, the salary disbursement Officer / Principal District Judge, Cuddalore had directed recovery of a sum of Rs.1,20,870/- 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 an inadmissible increment, upon his transfer from the post of Watchman to the post of Office Assistant with effect from 01.05.2024. In and by the very same proceedings, the salary disbursement Officer had also re-fixed 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 2/4

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 the 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 twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.) 14.02.2025 kkn Index: No Speaking 3/4

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

and G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

KKN To:

1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras - 600104.

2.The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore District.

W.P.No. 35210 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos. 38123 & 38124 of 2024 14.02.2025 4/4