An appellant is not entitled to interest on a refunded amount if it was not lawfully entitled at the time of receipt.

P.V. Balakrishnan, J.

This intra court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4029 of 2015 challenging the judgment dated 27.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, solely on the ground that interest for the amount of Rs.59,550/- which was ordered to be refunded to the writ petitioner, has not been granted.

2. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are as follows;

The appellant filed the writ petition challenging Exts.P3, P4, P7, P10, P14 and P18 orders wherein the pay of the appellant was regularised/refixed, after noticing a mistake committed earlier during pay fixation and ordering recovery of the excess amount paid. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, declined to grant the relief of quashment of Exts.P3, P4, P7, P10, P14 and P18 orders, after finding that there is no error in the action taken by the CJM for refixing the pay of the appellant and getting his pensionary benefits revised on the basis of the same. But, while ordering so, the learned Single Judge, after considering the decision of the Apex court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [ (2015) 4 SCC 334 ], found that the recovery effected was not justified and hence, directed the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.59,550/-, recovered from the gratuity of the appellant, within a time frame. It is challenging the non-granting of interest for the said amount, this appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner.

3. Heard Adv.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel for the appellant, Adv.P.A.Harish, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Adv.V.A.Mohammed, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant who has been deprived of the use of his money to which he is legitimately entitled, has a right to be compensated for the deprivation and hence, is entitled for interest. He also submitted that the amount was recovered from the appellant as early as on 25.02.2013, without conducting any departmental enquiry or finding the appellant guilty of misconduct and therefore, the respondents are liable to refund the amount with interest. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Dr.Poornima Advani and another v. Government of NCT and another [ (2025) 7 SCC 269 ] to contend that equity also demands that the appellant must be compensated for the deprivation of the money which he was legitimately entitled on his date of retirement. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. They argued that the learned Single Judge has found that there was no error in regularising the pay of the appellant, since there was a wrong fixation of pay earlier and therefore, it is not a case where the appellant can be stated as a person legally entitled to the money. They further contended that it is based on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), the recovery has been found vitiated and not because of the fact that the pay fixation done in 2009 was found to be legal. Hence, they submitted that the appellant is not entitled for any interest.

6. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and materials on record, we find no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the instant case, as stated earlier, even though the appellant had sought quashment of Exts.P3, P4, P7, P10, P14 and P18 orders, the learned Single Judge did not grant the said relief. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge has categorically found that the afore orders do not suffer from any error and that the subsequent refixation is proper. It was also found that the earlie