SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
Chandrasekaran – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Educational Officer – Respondent
W.P.(MD) No.12842 of 2022 | W.M.P.(MD) No.9114 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr.S.Sukumar
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Shaji Bino

Recovery from employees for excess payments made over five years prior is not legally permissible.

Headnote:The petition challenges proceedings regarding the recovery of excessive payments made to the petitioner, with reference to the judgment from the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, which states that recovery after five years is impermissible. The court concludes to quash the impugned proceedings issued for recovery due to the lapse of time in accordance with established law. The final outcome is that the writ petition is allowed, quashing the impugned proceedings dated 03.12.2021 and 19.01.2022.

Table of Content
1. challenge to proceedings regarding recovery of excessive payments. (Para 1 , 2)
2. recovery after five years deemed impermissible. (Para 3 , 5)
3. writ petition allowed, quashing recovery proceedings. (Para 6)

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings dated 03.12.2021, issued by the second respondent and the consequential proceedings dated 19.01.2022, issued by the third respondent, seeking to recover the alleged excess payments made to the petitioner in the form of incentive increment in the year 2011.

2. The petitioner was awarded incentive increment for acquiring higher educational qualification on 10.11.2011. However, the respondents, based on the audit objections, have issued the impugned proceedings, on the ground that the incentive increment awarded to the petitioner was erroneous and incorrect. Admittedly, more than five years have elapsed from the date when the petitioner was awarded incentive increment in the year 2011 till the date of passing of the impugned proceedings, which are dated 03.12.2021 and

19.01.2022.

3. The law is now well settled by the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein, it has been held that recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued, is legally impermissible.

4. The petitioner is also having the benefit of interim stay of the operation of the impugned proceedings pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 22.06.2022.

5. In view of the settled law and in view of the fact that recovery is sought to be made by the respondents after a lapse of more than five years from the date when the petitioner was awarded incentive increment, the impugned proceedings have to be quashed by this Court.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 03.12.2021, issued by the second respondent and the consequential proceedings dated 19.01.2022, issued by the third respondent, are quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top