Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24094
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
R.Sekar – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Society, Office of Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Society, Kajamalai, Trichy - 20 – Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 9242 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Gurunathan
For the Respondents: Mr.B.Ramanathan Additional Government Pleader
Recovery from employees in Class IV service is impermissible when payments were made mistakenly.
Headnote:This Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the recovery of Rs.1,73,371/- from the petitioner as he was not entitled to the payment. The Court held that the recovery was impermissible per the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, particularly Clause (i) preventing recovery from Class IV employees. The decision quashes the recovery proceedings, allowing the writ petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against recovery proceedings based on entitlement (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. recovery ruled impermissible under established case law (Para 3) |
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent bearing reference Na.Ka.No.3454/2022/Vesesaa, dated 25.08.2022, whereby an amount of Rs.1,73,371/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioner allegedly on the ground that the said amount was paid to the petitioner even though he was not legally entitled to receive the same towards certain allowances.
2. The petitioner herein has been working as a Salesman, which is a Class IV post, in the fourth respondent Society. The said amount of Rs.1,73,371/- has admittedly not been paid based upon any misrepresentation or representation made by the petitioner. Therefore, in the light of the admitted facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned recovery is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-
III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D'
service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from 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 wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
3. In the light of the above, the impugned recovery is hit by Clause (i) of paragraph No.18 of the above judgment. Therefore, the impugned recovery cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and without going into the other aspects of the matter, the impugned proceedings are quashed.
4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
