WA/1520/2024 of THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs K. CHANDRA on 23 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the writ order dated 13.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.30695 of 2008.

2. Though notice has been served on the respondent and her name was printed in the cause list today, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issues raised in this intra-court appeal between the parties are no more res-integra. The Division Bench of this Court has considered the issues in respect of the very same Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.117, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH7) Department, dated 28.08.2008.

4. Since the issues are one and the same and the Division Bench has already decided the issues, the said judgment has to be followed in this appeal also. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment reads as follows :- “6. As regards regularisation of service, either from the date of initial appointment or from the date on which he was brought into time scale of pay, the Apex Court, in an identical case in State of Tamil Nadu v. A.Singamuthu [(2017) 4 SCC 113], after referring to the judgments in School Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu v. R.Govindaswamy [(2014) 4 SCC 769] and State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal [(2011) 2 SCC 429], held as under: "17. The learned Single Judge erred in extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 to the respondent that too retrospectively from the date of completion of ten years of service of the respondent. The respondent was appointed on 01.04.1989 and completed ten years of service on 31.03.1999. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, if the respondent is to be given monetary benefits from the date of completion of ten years of service, that is from 01.04.1999 till the date of his regularization that is 18.06.2012, the financial commitment to the State would be around Rs.10,85,113/- (approximately)towards back wages apart from pension which will have a huge impact on the State exchequer. That apart, the learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that in respect of Registration Department, about 172 persons were regularized under various G.Os. and if the impugned order is sustained, the Government will have to pay the back wages to all those persons from the date of completion of ten years in service and this will have a huge impact on the State exchequer. Since the impugned order directing regularization of the respondent from the date of completion of their ten years would adversely affect the State exchequer in a huge manner, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this score also.

18. It is pertinent to note thateven the regularisation of services of part-time employees vide G.O.(Rt.) No.505 Finance (AA-2) Department dated 14.10.2009 and G.O.(2D) No.32 Finance (T.A.2)Department dated 26.03.2010 was effectedby extending the benefit of G.O. dated 28.02.2006 only from the date of Government Orders and not from the date of completion of their ten years of service. The Division Bench also failed to take note that G.O.Ms.No. 22 P &AR Dept. dated 28.02.2006 is applicable only to full-time daily wage employees and who had completed ten years of continuous service as on 01.01.2006 and not to part-time employees.As per G.O. (Rt.) No.84 dated 18.06.2012, the respondent is entitled to the monetary benefits only from the date of issuance of Government Order regularizing his service that is 18.06.2012. The impugned order of the Division Bench affirming the order of the Single Judge granting benefits to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.

7. In view of the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, the services of the respondent has to be regularised from the date of the Government Order by which he was brought into time scale of pay and not from the date of initial appointment. Accordingly, we hold that the respondent is entitled to be regularised from the date of the Government Order and not from the date of initial appointment.

8. Insofar as the recovery of the amount paid to the respondent by way of increment is concerned, the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [(2014) 8 SCC

883], in respect of Class III and Class IV Grade employees, held as under: "12. 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from 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."

9. In view of the settled proposition in Rafiq Masih case that where the employer has made payments mistakenly to the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service or Group 'C' or Group 'D' service, such payments cannot be recovered from the employees as the same is impermissible in law, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellants cannot recover the amount paid to the respondent in excess by way of increment.

10. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP No.7414 of 2018 is closed.”

5. In terms of the above judgment passed in W.A.No.847 of 2018 dated 05.07.2018, this Writ Appeal stands partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 23-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sp

To

1. The Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Commissioner and Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, DMS Building, Chennai – 600 006.

3. The Regional Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, V.O.C. Nagar, Thanjavur.

4. The Deputy Director, Exotic Cattle Breeding Farm, Eachankottai & Post, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. sp W.A.No.1520 of 2024 23-09-2026