The Commissioner v. Karuppiah

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.08.2018 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.A.(MD).No.1075 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD).No.7669 of 2018 1.The Commissioner, Horticulture and Plantation Crops Department Cheppauk, Chennai-05.

2.The Deputy Director of Horticulture Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

3.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

...

Appellants/Respondents Vs.

Karuppiah .. Respondent/writ petitioner Prayer:Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order passed by this Court, dated 28.06.2017 made in W.P.(MD).No.6751 of 2014.

Prayer in WP(MD). 6751/ 2014 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned recovery order passed by the 1st respondent vide Letter NO. Ka.Pa.Ni.2/18583/2013 dated 04.01.2014 and quash the same with respect to the petitioenr and consequently direct the respondents to continue all the increments as per the original pay fixation. For Appellants : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam Special Government Pleader For Respondents :Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] By the impugned order, the unilateral recovery was challenged. Recovery was sought for on the ground that payment has been made by mistake and oversight. This decision was made with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respect to several other persons, who are similarly placed like respondent/writ petitioner. Challenges were made. In one such case, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1003 of 2017, dated 25.07.2017, placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court, was pleased to confirm the decision of the learned Single Judge, who set aside the order of recovery. Thus, the issue involved is covered by the decision in W.A.(MD)No.1003 of 2017, dated 25.07.2017, which has become final against the appellant. 2.In such view of the matter, this writ appeal is dismissed. We are also of the view that there is no willful suppression by the respondent/writ petitioner in getting the excess payment. However, the unilateral recovery action was taken at the verge of retirement, though payment was made much earlier. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/ Assistant Registrar(CS-III) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III) TO 1.The Commissioner, Horticulture and Plantation Crops Department Cheppauk, Chennai-05.

2.The Deputy Director of Horticulture Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

3.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

+1cc to Mr.K.P.NARAYANAKUMAR, Advocate, SR.No.79267 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No.79373 W.A.(MD).No.1075 of 2018 20.08.2018 VS KK/SV/SAR-3/19.09.2018/2P-6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/