IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.G.Balachandran (Senior Citizen)

S/o.Govindasamy, No.8, Vignesh Nagar, Kollumedu Village, Chennai-600 062.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

3. The Chief Engineer (Buildings) General Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 4. The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Building Maintenance Division, Medical Works, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

5. The Assistant Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Building Maintenance Division, Medical Works, Sub Division-3, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,to call for the records relating to the order of the 5th respondent made in Proceedings No.121M / U.Che.Po. / Ka.Pa. U.Ko.3 / Ma. Pa. / 2022 dated 11.07.2022, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.1,46,336/- which was recovered from the retirement benefits of the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Subramani For Respondent(s): MR. V.Jeevagiridharan, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

11.07.2022, whereby consequent to the reduction in petitioner’s Grade Pay from Rs.4,400/- to Rs.2,800/- a sum of Rs.1,46,336/- was found to be due and the same was sought to be recovered from his retirement benefit. The same is challenged by the petitioner as being illegal, unjustified and arbitrary.

2. Petitioner served as a Time Keeper/Skilled Assistant Grade II in Public Works Department and retired from service on superannuation on 31.10.2015 as per the order of 5th respondent dated 29.10.2015. Petitioner would submit that on the date of his superannuation, he had completed 35 years and 10 months of continuous service.

3. It is submitted that during the course of his employment, inasmuch as the posts held by the petitioner did not provide any avenue for promotion, he was also paid the higher grade of pay at Rs.4,400/- instead of Rs.2,800/- during the period 01.04.2013 to 31.10.2015. Petitioner would further submit that he is a Group-D employer and that the impugned order seeking recovery is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. made in Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014 (White Washer case)

4. Learned counsel for respondents would submit that even at the time when the Grade Pay was re-fixed, it was indicated that in case there is any error in refixation, the same would be liable to be recovered from his salary. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“,e;j Cjpa eph;zaj;jhy; Vw;gLk; epYit bjhif

01/4/2013 Kjy; bgw jFjpa[ilath; vd;Wk; gpw;fhyj;jpy; ,e;j Cjpa eph;zak ; jtW vd bjhpathpd; mj;bjhif Cjpaj;jpy; KGtJk; gpoj;jk; bra;ag;gLk; vdt[k; bjhptpj;Jf;

bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.”

5. Learned Additional Government Pleader would place reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh, made in Civil Appeal No.3500 of 2006, and submit that this is one of those cases in which reliance on White Washer’s case may be misplaced, inasmuch as petitioner had also agreed to recovery of the excess pay, due to erroneous fixation of Grade Pay vide letter dated 26.11.2015.

6. In the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh, which dealt with the recovery sought from the Additional Civil Judge, as a matter of fact, it was found that even when the respondent opted for the revised pay scale, he furnished an undertaking that he would be liable to refund any excess payment made to him. It was thus found that the respondent therein was placed on notice for any payment found to be m