A petitioner is estopped from re-agitating an issue, such as pay re-fixation, in a subsequent petition if they had previously conceded to that specific issue in earlier legal proceedings to secure a favorable outcome on a separate relief.

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To direct respondents to fix the revised pension pay of the petitioner upon the pay drawn at Rs.72,300 with applicable D.A., besides directing them to pay the arrears of pension from 01.04.2024 onwards till the date of payment, together with applicable interest.”

2. The petitioner joined the Revenue Department as a Typist on

19.10.1994. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2024, as Tahsildar. The grievance of the petitioner is that her basic pay of Rs.72,300/- was reduced to a sum of Rs.66,200/-.

Therefore aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.

4. The petitioner has earlier filed a writ petition in WP.No.22770 of 2025 for the following relief:

“To call for the records of the first respondent i.e. the District Collector, Mayiladuthurai in his proceedings in Na.Ka.6864/2022/M5 dated 14.03.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to order refund of this amount of sum of Rs.5,41,315/- recovered after retirement within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

5. In the order passed in the said writ petition the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was recorded as follows:

“However, he would submit that the petitioner is not disputing re-fixation and only refuting recovery.”

6. Recording the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, the writ petition in WP.No.22770 of 2025 was disposed of stating as follows:

“In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfered with. Hence, the impugned order dated 14.03.2025 ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.5,41,315/- is hereby quashed. At the same time, as agreed by the petitioner, re-fixation is confirmed. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the amount has already been recovered by the Department. If such amount has already been recovered from the petitioner, the respondents are directed to refund the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without any interest.”

The learned Judge has clearly held that the petitioner has agreed for the re-fixation.

7. In the light of the fact that in the earlier writ petition the petitioner has conceded that he does not question the re-fixation, but he only questioned the recovery, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.