WP/16309/2022 of G.Ganesan Vs State bank of India on 25 September 2026

ORDER

Today, the matter is listed under the caption for being mentioned at the request of both sides learned counsel.

2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has admitted the pay re-fixation, whereas their arguments have not been noted. This factum is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, it is made clear that the petitioner has admitted the pay fixation and challenged only the recovery. Therefore, the pay re-fixation is confirmed.

3. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in view of the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have not settled the terminal benefits. Therefore, the respondents are directed to settle all the terminal benefits to the petitioner within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. The above order is read as a continuation of the order dated 11.09.2026 made in WP.No.16309 of 2022. 25-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JRS

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:33 pm )

WP No. 16309 of 2022

To

1. Deputy General Manager (B AND O), State bank of India Chennai South 5th Floor, No.86 Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

2. Assistant General Manager State Bank of India, Anna Salai Branch, State Bank Buildings, No.157, Anna Salai, Chennai 600002.

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:33 pm )

WP No. 16309 of 2022

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. JRS WP No. 16309 of 2022 25-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:33 pm )

WP No. 16309 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-09-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN WP No. 16309 of 2022 and W.M.P.No.15636 of 2022 G.Ganesan ..Petitioner Vs

3. State Bank of India, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager (B & O), Chennai South, 5th Floor, No.86, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

4. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Anna Salai Branch, State Bank Buildings, No.157, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concerned records from the second respondent, quash the order of the second respondent dated 26.04.2022 and consequently direct the respondent Bank to restore the basic pay of the petitioner, refund Rs.4,98,137.51, which has been recovered from the petitioner and calculate the terminal benefits of the petitioner on the basis of his basic pay prior to reduction and pay all the monetary benefits arising out of such restoration along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:33 pm )

WP No. 16309 of 2022

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Kamatchi Sundaresan For Respondent: Mr.C.Mohan for Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary for M/s.King and Partridge

ORDER

The present petition has been filed to quash the order of the second respondent dated 26.04.2022 and consequently direct the respondent Bank to restore the basic pay of the petitioner, refund Rs.4,98,137.51, which has been recovered from the petitioner and calculate the terminal benefits of the petitioner on the basis of his basic pay prior to reduction and pay all the monetary benefits arising out of such restoration along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner served in the Indian Army from 1983 and was discharged from service in 2000, thereafter joining the State Bank of Travancore in 2006. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his pay was fixed as per the last pay drawn from the Indian Military and ultimately, after serving for more than 16 years, he retired from the State Bank of Travancore on 30.04.2022. In the meanwhile, the State Bank of Travancore was merged with the State Bank of India. However, the respondents recovered a sum of Rs.4,98,137.51/- from the petitioner on the date of his retirement on the premise that a wrong pay fixation was made on the date of his joining the State Bank of

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:33 pm )

WP No. 16309 of 2022

Travancore service.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that since no notice was issued, the petitioner challenged the recovery and this Court, vide order dated 12.04.2022 in W.P.No.7654 of 2022, directed the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation. In pursuance of the same, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the petitioner’s request. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in a similar set of facts, this Court, vide order dated 20.08.2026 in W.P.No.2987 of 2023, has set aside a similar recovery and directed a refund of the same by following the judgment in W.A.No.2197 of 2026 dated 17.08.2026.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would strongly oppose the above application and contend that the recovery was made in accordance with law. It is also her contention that the petitioner had joined the State Bank of Travancore, which was later merged with the State Bank of India; therefore, at this length of time, the objections raised by the petitioner in respect of the wrong pay fixation cannot be entertained. Hence, she prayed for the dismissal of the present application.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:33 pm )

WP No. 16309 of 2022

6. It is a well settled principle of law that any recovery beyond a period of five years is unsustainable as per White Washer's case. In the present case, the recovery of Rs.4,98,137.51/- is, according to the respondents, an excess amount paid beyond the entitlement of the petitioner from his initial date of appointment, namely 2006, until his retirement on 30.04.2022. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the recovery extends beyond the period of five years. Furthermore, the petitioner was a Senior Associate in the clerical grade, falling under Group-C. Therefore, at this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the relevant portion of which is extracted herein: “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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:33 pm )

WP No. 16309 of 2022

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the 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.”

7. In view of the above ratio, since the recovery spans over a period of more than five years and was ordered at the very verge of the retirement of the petitioner, it has definitely caused harsh repercussions in his life, which would directly affect the Right to Life as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the conduct of the respondent banks in not filing the counter in this matter for the past four years also needs to be mentioned without adding any adjectives. As a matter of fact, under similar circumstances, this Court vide judgment dated 20.08.2026 in W.P.No.2987 of 2023 has set aside the recovery. Therefore, this Court finds justification to interfere with the recovery passed

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:33 pm )

WP No. 16309 of 2022

against the petitioner. As a result of which, the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside and the respondent banks are directed to refund the sum of Rs.4,98,137.51/- to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the amount is not paid within eight weeks, then the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 10 % per annum from the date of recovery till the date of actual disbursement.

8. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes NSL To

1. The Deputy General Manager (B & O), State Bank of India, Chennai South, 5th Floor, No.86, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

2. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Anna Salai Branch, State Bank Buildings, No.157, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:33 pm )

WP No. 16309 of 2022

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NSL WP No. 16309 of 2022 11-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:33 pm )