BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI WP(MD) No.35804 of 2025 and WMP(MD) No.28499 of 2025 R.Selvakumaran ... Petitioner Vs

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, The Department of School Education, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Principal Accountant General,(A and E), O/o. the Principal Accountant General (A and E), No. 361, Annasalai, Chennai 600 018.

3.The Joint Director(Personnel)

The School Education Directorate, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.

4.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Theni District.

5.The District Educational Officer (Elementary), O/o. the District Educational Officer(Elementary), Theni District.

6.The Treasury Officer, O/o the Treasury Officer, The District Treasury, Theni District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in No. E09/3/10932275/ADK/1960 dated 25.07.2025, on the file of the Respondent No.2 and the consequential impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1605/A1/2025 dated 29.09.2025 on the file of the Respondent No.5 and the consequential impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1605/A1/2025 dated 14.11.2025 on the file of the Respondent No.5 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar For R1, R3 to R6 : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran

O R D E R

The petitioner has served as a Superintendent in Education Department and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2025. The petitioner aggrieved over the order passed by the 2^nd respondent Accountant General, returning the pension proposal and the consequential order passed by the 5^th respondent revising the scale of pay of the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 17.03.1999 on compassionate grounds and he was conferred with selection grade on 17.03.2009 in the same post. Subsequently he was promoted as Assistant on 21.12.2009. The petitioner has raised objection that his junior one Kuppan has been promoted as Assistant even on 04.01.2006 and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for promotion with effect from 04.01.2006. The same has been considered by the 3^rd respondent and the petitioner has also been promoted as Assistant with effect from 04.01.2006. While so the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2025 after completing 25 years of service. The pension proposal sent by the 5^th respondent has been returned by the 2^nd respondent directing the 5^th respondent, to refix the petitioner's pay by taking into account of the promotion provided to the petitioner with effect from 04.01.2006. The 5^th respondent has complied with the direction of the 2^nd respondent in a mechanical manner by revising the scale of pay of the petitioner with effect from 04.01.2006 by proceedings dated 29.09.2025, without even providing notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court challenging the above proceedings.

3.The learned counsel further submits that even if there is any wrong fixation of pay in the lower post, the petitioner is protected as per GO.Ms.No.210 Personal and Administrative Reforms (Per.M), dated 11.03.1987 and therefore, the order passed by the 5^th respondent dated 29.09.2025 is against law. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential order of recovery dated 14.11.2025 and this recovery order has been passed based on the order of the 5^th respondent dated 29.09.2025. He further submits that there cannot be any recovery as against the retired employee as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih [(2015) 4 SCC 334]. Therefore, the impugned orders are as against the settled position of law.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent