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

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

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top