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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 12536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
A.Marimuthu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P.Nos.21463 & 6025 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

W.P.Nos.21463 & 6025 of 2016

and

WMP.Nos.5341, 5342 & 18352 of 2016

1.A.Marimuthu

2.M.Murugan

3.N.Chinnarasu ...Petitioners in W.P.No.21463/2016

1.P.Kumaresan

2.S.Shanmugasundaram

3.K.Palanisamy

4.A.Mahalingam

5.S.Balakrishnan ...Petitioners in W.P.No.6025/2016

Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

Represented by its Secretary

Municipal Administration and Water Supply Dept

Fort St.George

Secretariat

Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director of Municipal Administration

Chepauk

Chennai 600 005.

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 03:54:42 pm )

##PAGE2##

3.The Commissioner

Pollachi Municipality

Pollachi Town

Coimbatore Dist 642 001. ...Respondents in both W.P.Nos.

Prayer in W.P.No.21463 of 2016: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for

the records culminated in Rc.Lr.No.45529/F3/2010 dated 21.05.2015 passed by

the 2nd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to

continue implementing the posts and pay scale as revised by the Government in

G.O.Ms.No.338 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 26.08.2010 for the

category of ‘Unskilled’.

Prayer in W.P.No.6025 of 2016: This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, directing the respondents

to call for the records relating to the impugned letter issued by the 2nd

respondent in Rc.Lr.No.45529/F3/2010 dated 21/05/2015, quash the same and

consequently direct the respondents to continue implementing the posts and pay

scale as revised by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.338 Finance (Pay Cell)

Department dated 26/08/2010 for the category of ‘Unskilled’.

For Petitioners

in both W.P.Nos. : Mr.Vijayaganesh.S

For Respondents

in both W.P.Nos. : Mr.V.Veluchamy for R1 & R2

Additional Government Pleader

Mr.R.Lakshmi Narayanan for R3

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 03:54:42 pm )

##PAGE3##

COMMON ORDER

In these Writ Petitions, the challenge is to the communication dated

21.05.2015 bearing Rc.Lr. No. 45529/F3/2010 issued by the second respondent.

By the said communication, the higher pay fixed in respect of the petitioners

was cancelled, and the pay of the petitioners was refixed in accordance with the

instructions issued therein. Further, it was directed that the excess pay, if any,

arising out of such refixation, should be recovered from the salary of the

petitioners.

2. The petitioners are all Group IV employees serving in the third

respondent Municipality. The petitioners were redesignated as Unskilled

Workers vide G.O.Ms. No. 338/2010, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, and were

granted the revised scale of pay with effect from 18.08.2011. While so, the

second respondent issued the impugned communication.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents.

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 03:54:42 pm )

##PAGE4##

4. Admittedly, the petitioners received the revised salary based on the

Government Order, and such revision of pay scale was not on account of any

misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioners.

5. The writ petitioners are serving as Group IV employees and, therefore,

recovery of excess salary, if any, cannot be effected in view of the legal

principles settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab &

Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih [2015 (4) SCC 334]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid

down the governing principles relating to recovery in paragraph No. 18 of the

judgment, which is extracted 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise

the following few situa

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