WP/27905/2023 of A.SELVARAJ Vs THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT on 18 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.C.1/4553/2022 dated 23.02.2023, and consequently (i) to direct the respondents to repay the amount already recovered from the petitioner and (ii) to direct the respondents to restore the pay of the petitioner with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from his client, would submit that he has no objection in respect of the pay fixation and restricts his claim only against the recovery order. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was serving as a cleaner before the respondent corporation and is a Group D employee. On the verge of his retirement, the impugned order was passed on 23.02.2023, as if there was an excess payment over and above the entitlement of the petitioner from 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2023 and consequently, a sum of Rs.1,66,836/- was deducted from his terminal benefits, given that the petitioner retired on 28.02.2023. The learned counsel would submit that since the recovery pertains to a period of more than five years and the petitioner is a Group D employee, as per the White Washer’s case, the recovery is liable to be set aside.

3. The said contention was totally objected to by the learned counsel for the second respondent, who would submit that the recovery was made only

WP No. 27905 of 2023

based upon the audit report submitted by the first respondent. He would further submit that as and when an increment was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner used to give an undertaking that if any excess payment was subsequently identified, he undertook to repay the same. Therefore, having received the excess amount, there cannot be any difficulty for the petitioner to refund the same as per his undertaking. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent that since the amount has already been recovered from the petitioner, it need not be refunded. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the application.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by either side.

5. The learned counsel, in all fairness, would submit that they are not disputing the pay fixation, and they challenge only the recovery. While looking at the factual position, the recovery was made for a period between 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2023, which is well beyond a period of five years. Admittedly, the petitioner was serving as a cleaner and he was a Group D employee and the impugned order was passed on the verge of the petitioner’s retirement. At this juncture, this Court would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, and for ready reference, Paragraph No.18

WP No. 27905 of 2023

thereof is extracted hereunder: “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).

(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

WP No. 27905 of 2023

recover.”

6. As per the above judgment, when any recovery is effected against a Group D employee and the recovery covers a period beyond five years, the same is liable to be interfered with. In the case in hand, on both counts namely, the petitioner being a Group D employee and the recovery being beyond the period of five years, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.02.2023.

Accordingly,

the

impugned

order

in Na.Ka.No.C.1/4553/2022 dated 23.02.2023 is set aside to the extent of the recovery directed against the petitioner.

7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have already recovered a sum of Rs.1,66,836/- from his terminal benefits. That being the case, the second respondent is directed to refund the said amount to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NSL

WP No. 27905 of 2023

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NSL To

1. The Director of Local Fund Audit, Integrated Complex for Finance Department, Animal Husbandry Hospital Complex, Teynampet, Chennai.

2. The Commissioner, Tiruppur Corproation, Tiruppur. WP No. 27905 of 2023 18-09-2026