IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR and WMP.No.9783 of 2019

1.S.Saravanan

2.K.Gopalan

3.N.Kumaresan ...Petitioners Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government Handloom, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

2.The Secretary to Government Transport Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

3.The Joint Commissioner of Transport Chepauk Chennai 600 005. ...Respondents Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the record pertaining to the impugned letter of the first respondent in foj vz;/2928-vg;-2016?8 dated 19.12.2017 and consequential letter of the third respondent in foj vz;/19109-Mh;gp

2-2018 dated 04.03.2019 and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Raj Kumar For Respondents : Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Special Government Pleader

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the first respondent by proceedings dated 19.12.2017 and the consequential letter of the third respondent dated 04.03.2019 sought to recover the increment amount paid to the petitioners by treating there as eligible for Special Grade increment.

3. It is the further case of the petitioners that no notice has been issued to the petitioners before the respondent resorting to the aforesaid action and thus, the impugned proceedings is in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that since the petitioners fall under the category of Group “D” employees, the respondent cannot recover aforesaid amount which has been paid to them not on account of any misrepresentation by them; and that the aforesaid recovery is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washers) and others reported in 2015 (4) SCC

334.

5. The counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents is filed.

6. By the counter affidavit it is primarily contended that the petitioners being recognized as surplus employees of Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, are eligible only for pay protection and service protection rendered by them with Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board for the purpose of sanctioning pensionary benefits under the various Government Orders namely G.O.(Ms).No.154 dated 21.11.2009 and G.O.(Ms).No.125 dated 02.09.2010; and that since, the petitioners were granted the benefit of selection/special grade contrary to the Government orders it is need to be cancelled and excess amount paid to the petitioners is to be recovered.

7. By the counter affidavit it is contended that since, the petitioners were granted increments by considering as eligible for special grade, the impugned proceedings were issued seeking for recovery of the excess amount paid.

8. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

9. Insofar as recovery of any excess amount paid to Group “C” /Group “D” employees is concerned the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washers)

and others (cited supra) had held as hereunder: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a peri