IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.12.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.No.4465 of 2024

1.V.Venkatesan (died)

2.Rani Venkatesan 3.Vinoth Venkatesh 4.Sathish Venkatesh [Petitioners 2 to 4 substituted as legal heirs of the

1^st petitioner vide order dated 11.12.2025 in W.M.P.No.4465 of 2024 in W.P.No.4159 of 2024] ... Petitioners Vs

1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Public administration and works, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.

3.The Superintend Engineer, (mechanical)

Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent’s proceedings vide G.D.C.No.P12/011748/2023 dated 05.07.2023 is illegal and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad For Respondents : Ms.S.Vanitha Joice Rani

O R D E R

Aggrieved by the order of recovery dated 05.07.2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the Corporation of Chennai as a Welder on 03.06.1994 and was retired from service upon attaining superannuation on 30.06.2022. Subsequent to his retirement, the present impugned order was passed sanctioning a sum of Rs.10,52,651/- towards payment of provisional/retirement gratuity after reducing a sum of Rs.1,32,653/- on the ground of excess payment. It is further stated that though the sanctioned pension was fixed at Rs.24,350/-, the same was reduced to Rs.16,234/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is no longer res integra, as the similar issue was already considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others reported in SCC OnLine SC 1027 wherein, it is held that, no recovery can be made as against the employees after their retirement long after the date of alleged excess payment in the absence of any misrepresentation or claim made by the employees.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents while defending the impugned order submitted that, the revision in question was made pursuant to the instructions issued by the Joint Director, Local Fund Audit and the said revision was duly intimated to the petitioner for which, the petitioner had also given his consent and therefore, the impugned order of recovery passed by the 2^nd respondent cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The issue that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is no longer res integra, as the similar issue has already been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (While Washer) reported in SCC OnLine SC 1027. The relevant portion of the said Judgement is extracted hereunder, wherein, it is held as under:-

“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 period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has