IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

and

W.M.P.Nos.1854 & 24668 of 2024

1.S.Veerasaravanan

2.P.Sivakumar

3.P.Senthilkumar

4.K.Mohanraj

5.S.Gunasekaran

6.K.Sangapillai

7.K.Ramachandran

8.S.Raja

9.J.S.John Kingley ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.The Director of Fire Service,

Tamil Nadu Fire Service,

No.17, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,

Egmore, Chennai – 8.

2.The District of Fire Service Officer,

Fire and Rescue Service,

Thirichirapalli District.

....Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Muu.Mu.No.7799/A1/2023 and Pa.Aa.No.119/Aa1/202 dated 27.12.2023 to recover the increment of Rs.97,184/- and Rs.89,984/- from the petitioners and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.K.Surendran Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order in Muu.Mu.No.7799/A1/2023, Pa.AA.No.119/Aa1/202 dated 27.12.2023 on the file of the second respondent.

2.Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

3.The petitioners were appointed as Firemen on 01.12.2002 and they have promoted as Upgraded Leading Firemen on 01.12.2017. They were given incentive increment vide G.O.Ms.No.777, Home (Police~XVII) Department. ;Thereafter, by proceedings dated 13.01.2022, the Department has ordered to revise the pay scale stating that the pay fixation along with the increment has been wrongly fixed for the period from 01.12.2017 and accordingly, the salary of the petitioners were revised and refixed.

4.However, now the order dated 27.12.2023 has been issued for recovering the excess amount drawn by the petitioners. At the time when the pay was re~fixed, the petitioners were not given with any proceedings for recovery. Now, after several years, the present order has been issued for recovery without putting the petitioners on notice. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. The Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in AIR 2015 SC 696 had held that recovery of excess payment wrongly made by the Department to Group~C and Group~D employees is impermissible in law. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.1122 of 2020 and batch dated 23.11.2023 [M.Santha vs. The Joint Director (Employment), O/o.Directorate of Employment and Training, Guindy, Chennai ~ 600 032 and batch], by invoking ‘White Washer’ case, has observed thus.

“15.Mr.J.Pooventhera Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision rendered in “White Washers“ case to canvas his point that the stipulation made in White Washers case is applicable to the petitioners and even for the sake of argument, if the payment made to the petitioners are considered excess, it cannot be recovered. In paragraph 12 of the White Washers case the following summary has been given:

“12. 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

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

service).

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

(iii)Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv)Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has bee