IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON

08.01.2026 10.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU Writ Petition No.7796 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.8731 of 2024

1.Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Deelopment/ UA&E Nirmal Bhawan, New Delhi.

2.The Director General, CPWD, Nirmal Bhawan, New Delhi.

3.The Additional Director General, Southern Region I, CPWD, Rajaji Bhawan, Chennai – 600 090.

4.The Pay and Accounts Officer, PAO, CPWD (SZ), E-2-C-Wing, Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. ... Petitioners Vs

1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai – 600 104.

2.M.Bose ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the impugned order in O.A.No.759 of 2019 dated 23.06.2022 and quash the same and pass further orders.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General Assisted by Mr.Sudhir Kumar. B For R1 : Tribunal For R2 : Mr.P.S.Vijaya Kumar

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein, the order of recovery had been set aside.

2. Heard Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr.Sudhir Kumar. B, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.S.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.

3. Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that the second respondent herein had joined as a Junior Engineer Civil as early as in the year 1979 and had also been promoted as Executive Engineer and superannuated on 31.05.2014. He would further submit that he had been benefitted with an annual increment including the 3^rd MACP on 18.01.2010. It was found that the second respondent had been benefitted with a wrong fixation of pay and therefore, his pay was also revised and refixed and a sum of Rs.2,97,529/- was directed to be recovered from his retirement gratuity. He would submit that whenever the second respondent's pay was refixed while he was in service, it had always been informed that the same was subject to rectification and if any over payment is found, the same would be recovered from him. Even though, the order of recovery and refixation was made in the year 2014, immediately after superannuation, the second respondent nearly after two years of such refixation and recovery had sought to refund the amount recovered from him pursuant to an Office Memorandum issued in the month of March 2016 based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in White Washer's case. He would submit that the claim is wholly an after thought and is also barred.

4. He would further submit that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in White Washer's case is a subsequent judgment after the superannuation of the second respondent and also the refixation and recovery made. Hence, the same cannot be made applicable to the case of the second respondent. He would submit that over-looking all these, the Tribunal under the impugned order had not only directed the petitioners to refund the amount recovered to be paid together with interest at the rate of 9%, but had also directed restoration of pay of the applicant as fixed originally and also grant him all consequential and monetary benefits including the pension payable to him. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

5. Countering his arguments, Mr.P.S.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent would submit that the second respondent had been benefitted with all increments based upon the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. After his superannuation, his terminal benefits have also been paid based upon his last drawn salary and his pay had been refixed after one month of his s