Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Suresh Kumar, N. Senthilkumar, JJ
The District Health Officer District Health Office, Erode – Appellant
Versus
B. Ramesh – Respondent
WA No. 492 of 2026 | CMP No. 4845 of 2026 | WP.No.21760 of 2025
For Appellant(s): Mr.M.Bindran, Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Ezhilarasan
Recovery of excess pay from retired employees impermissible if error by employer, per Rafiq Masih guidelines.
Headnote:The respondent, appointed as Multi Purpose Health Assistant in 1989 with subsequent promotions, faced recovery of Rs.4,66,309/- from retirement benefits due to alleged excess pay from 01.01.2006, as per proceedings dated 23.08.2024 and 06.09.2024 by appellants. The writ court quashed the recovery, holding the error attributable to appellants, not the employee, relying on Supreme Court principles in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih restricting recoveries. Court affirmed no recovery permissible post-superannuation despite undertakings. Issues framed: Whether recovery from retired employee's benefits for excess payment due to employer's error is lawful. Ratio: Five situations per Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, para 18, prohibit recovery from retired employees or those retiring within a year, even with undertakings, as mistake not attributable to employee; writ court correctly applied this, remitting pay fixation to employer with notice. Writ appeal dismissed, upholding writ court order quashing recovery; liberty to refix pay and revise benefits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of writ appeal challenging recovery order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. undertakings invalid for employer errors. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. rafiq masih prohibits post-retirement recovery. (Para 6) |
| 4. appeal dismissed, upholding no recovery. (Para 7) |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SENTHILKUMAR J.)
This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Writ Court in WP.No.21760 of 2025 dated 19.06.2025.
2.The Respondent/writ petitioner filed Writ Petition to call for the records relating to the Proceedings dated 23.08.2024 passed in R.No.1825/A6/2024 on the file of the 1st Appellant and consequently Proceedings dated 06.09.2024 passed in Na.Ka.No.588/A1/2024 on the file of the 2nd Appellant, quash the same and to direct the Appellants to refund a sum of Rs.4,66,309/- with interest and fix his original pay scale with all attendant benefits.
3.The case of the respondent is that he was appointed as Multi Purpose Health Assistant on 21.07.1989 and got subsequent promotions. An order dated 06.09.2024 vide Na.Ka.No.588/A1/2024 was passed by the 2nd Appellant to recover a sum of Rs.4,66,309/- from the retirement benefits of the Respondent/writ petitioner. The recovery was effected from 01.01.2006 on the ground that there was an excess pay since 01.01.2006.
4.Though there is no finding by the writ Court with regard to the undertaking given by the respondent/writ petitioner, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate that whenever an increment was given to the respondent, he had given an undertaking that if any excess amount received by him, would be returned back to the Treassury.
5.The Writ Court taken into consideration the facts noted that the Appellants committed an error in making excess payment and now sought to recover the same. The Writ Court has rightly held that the mistake was on the part of the Appellants and therefore, the liability cannot be foisted on the writ petitioner for an error committed by them.
6.The learned counsel for the Appellants fairly submitted that Division Bench of this Court by order dated 26.03.2026 has dismissed an identical case in W.A.No.427 of 2026. The said order is usefully extracted hereunder:
“5. The writ Court having considered the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, where five situations have been postulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under which such kind of recovery has been declared to be impermissible, has allowed the said writ petition.
6. Insofar as the re-fixation of salary is concerned, liberty was given to the employer by remitting the matter to the employer to re-fix the correct salary to the employee by putting the petitioner on notice. The said order though has been assailed by the appellants in the present appeal, after hearing the learned Special Counsel appearing for the appellants, we are of the view that, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in White Washer’s case cited supra especially in Paragraph No.18 has made a mandate as to five such situations under which no recovery can be made and such kind of recovery if it is made, it is impermissible under law.
7. When such a strong declaration has been made even though if it is a wrong calculation made by the employer against the employee and an undertaking has been received from him or undertaking has been imposed on him to recover at a later point of time, such an undertaking would be enforceable before the superannuation of the employee.
8. Once the employee is superannuated, the second situation at paragraph No.18 of the White Washer’s case would squarely apply to the case where the recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, cannot be recovered. In such case, recovery cannot be made against the employee for any alleged excess amount where the reason cannot be attributable on th
