The Principal Secretary To Government v. Kamal C

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN and C.M.P(MD)No.3368 of 2026 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, 3rd Floor, Perasiriyar K.Anbazhagan Maaligai, 571, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-35.

3.The Engineer in Chief and Chief Engineer (General) Public Works Department, Chennai-05.

4.The Superintendent Engineer, Building Construction and Maintenance Circle, Public Works Department, Trichy-01.

1/5

5.The Executive Engineer (Electrical), PWD Electrical Division, Trichy-01.

... Appellants/Respondents vs.

C.Kamal ... Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 02.07.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.11485 of 2024. For Appellant : Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.11485 of 2024, by which the impugned communication for recovery of the additional allowance allegedly paid to 119 Assistant Engineers was set aside, the respondents in the writ petition have filed the present writ appeal.

2/5

2. The learned Single Judge set aside the impugned order mainly on the ground that without proper explanations as to how such sanction was made in accordance with the rules and without seeking explanation from the concerned employees, the amount cannot be recovered. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order does not specify the basis and that a clarification is required, particularly in response to the audit objection. It is further submitted that the impugned order was issued based of a Government letter and the entitlement of the parties to claim additional allowance has to be examined in the context of the relevant rules.

4. We are of the view that before taking any action for recovery, appropriate notice must be issue to each employee who benefited from the additional allowance. Only after considering their explanations can any such order be passed. Therefore we are of the view that no further direction is required. 3/5

5. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 17.03.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No am N.SATHISH KUMAR ,J.

4/5

and M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.

am ORDER MADE IN DATED : 17.03.2026 5/5