Madras High Court
WA/2990/2026 of The State of TamilNadu Vs S.Krithivasan on 25 September 2026
WA No. 2990 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WA No. 2990 of 2026
and
CMP No.26347 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012620932025}
1. The State of TamilNadu
Rep. By Its Secretary To Government,
School Education (G2) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director Of Elementary Education
DPI College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Kuttalam Union, Nagapattinam District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
S.Krithivasan
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 23.10.2024 made in WP.No.19027 of 2011 and allow this Writ appeal.
For Appellant(s):
Mrs.Y.Kavitha,
Additional Government Pleader
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) This writ appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed in WP.No.19027 of 2011, dated 23.10.2024 and allow the above writ appeal.
WA No. 2990 of 2026
2. The respondent/writ petitioner is a retired Government Servant and attained the age of Superannuation on 05.08.2003. After a lapse of seven years from the date of his retirement, recovery order has been passed vide proceedings dated 11.10.2010 on the ground that there has been some mistake committed in respect of granting the Selection Grade/Special Grade. Challenging re-fixation and recovery, respondent/writ petitioner preferred writ proceedings. Writ Court allowed the writ petition. Hence, State preferred the present writ appeal.
3. Learned Single Judge relying on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih1, held that the error in re-fixation can be corrected but recovery of excess salary paid shall not be recovered.
4. Authorities Competent are empowered to rectify the errors in fixation of pay and grant the correct pay as applicable. However, in the absence of any misrepresentation on the part of the employee, excess salary paid at the instance of the department cannot be recovered. It is an error committed by the Department for which the respondent cannot be penalised after a lapse of many years. Recovery of excess salary at this length of time would result in extreme hardship to the employee. 12015 4 SCC 334
WA No. 2990 of 2026
5. The writ order dated 23.10.2024 passed in WP No.19027 of 2011 is in consonance with the legal principles settled by the Courts. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
6. However, the appellants are directed to refund the recovered amount, if any, to the respondent within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 25-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SLI
WA No. 2990 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. SLI WA No. 2990 of 2026 and CMP No.26347 of 2026 25-09-2026