2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 12673
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice T. VINOD KUMAR
V.C.Ramesh Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of TamilNadu – Respondent
##PAGE1##
W.P.No.17902 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
W.P.No.17902 of 2021
and
WMP.Nos.19107, 19109 & 19111 of 2021
V.C.Ramesh Rao ... Petitioner
vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Directorate of Medical Education
Represented by its Director,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
3. Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children,
Represented by its Director and Superintendent,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
4. The Accountant General (A&E).
No.361, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 018. … Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 04:35:55 pm )
##PAGE2##W.P.No.17902 of 2021
third respondent in Ref.No.7631/E1/2/2018, dated 02.06.2021 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents 3 & 4 to disburse the entire amount of
Pensionary benefits, including gratuity to the petitioner on the basis of the letter of
the third respondent in Ref.No.07631/E1(2)/2018 dated 10.12.2018 and pass
orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.S.Badrinarayanan
for M/s.P.Wilson Associates
For Respondents : Mr.K.Tippusulthan
Government Advocate for R1 to R3
: Mr.V.Vijayshankar
Standing Counsel for R4
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.
2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed the action of the
third respondent in issuing proceedings dated 02.06.2021 pursuant to the
proceedings of the second respondent dated 15.04.2021, by which the respondents
have sought to recover certain payments made to the petitioner while in service in
the form of increments, Special Grade Pay, as set out in the impugned proceedings,
and have sought for consent of the petitioner for the said recovery including
revision and re-fixation of pay by making necessary entries in the Service Register.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 04:35:55 pm )
##PAGE3##W.P.No.17902 of 2021
3. Petitioner contended that he had retired from service on 31.08.2018 as
Skilled Assistant Grade – II after putting in 31 years of service; and that the post of
Skilled Assistant Grade – II falls under Group – C category of employment and as
such, the respondents could not have issued the impugned proceedings seeking to
recover the alleged excess payment of Special Grade Pay, Annual increment, etc.,
3 years after petitioner retiring from service.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, it is also contended that the issue of
recovery in respect of Group C and D category of employee is no longer res-
integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334
whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that no recovery of any excess payment
can be made in respect of the employees falling under Group C and D categories.
5. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further contended that since the
aforesaid payments were made while the petitioner was in service and the
respondents having not raised any objection for such payment and since the said
payment having not been made on account of any misrepresentation by the
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/02/2026 04:35:55 pm )
##PAGE4##W.P.No.17902 of 2021
petitioner, the respondent cannot now take steps to recover the amount claiming
the same as excess payment made.
6. On behalf of the petitioner, it is further contended that insofar as re-
fixation of his pension is concerned, no notice has been issued by the respondent
before undertaking the aforesaid exercise, and as such, the impugned action of the
respondent in seeking to revise and refix the pension without notice is in violation
and cannot be sustained.
7