WP/28723/2023 of K.PARASURAMAN Vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES on 18 September 2026

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Block Health Supervisor in Government Block Primary Health Centre, Kalambur, Tiruvannamalai District-606 903. The learned counsel submitted that after the retirement of this petitioner, the second respondent, by order dated 16.08.2023, had re-fixed the pay on the premise that they paid excess amount beyond the entitlement of the petitioner between the period 01.08.2010 to 31.07.2023. It is also his submission that even according to the respondents, such excess pay was not on account of any misrepresentation or misdemeanour made by this petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that any recovery against the retired employee has been heavily condemned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in White Washer case. The facts of this case is squarely comes within the ratio of the White Washer case and hence, prayed to interfere with the impugned order.

2. The said contention was totally objected by learned Government Advocate for the respondents and would submit that the wrong fixation was modified as per order dated 16.08.2023. It is the submission of the learned Government Advocate that as per G.O.Ms.No.297, Finance Department, dated 26.08.2010, the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs.9,300 + 4,200/- Grade Pay in the Pay Band 2-Rs.9,300-34,800 + 4,200/- Grade Pay and the monetary benefit were also been drawn with effect from 01.08.2010. The next increment was on 01.04.2006. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the pay as on 01.01.2006 was Rs.4,686/- and his pay to be fixed at Rs.4,686/- * 1.86 = Rs. 8,720/- as on 01-01-2006, whereas the pay was fixed as per Additional Fitment Table No. 5, namely Rs.10,170/- + Grade Pay 4,200 = Rs.14,370/-. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that only as per the existing rules, after getting normal annual increment as on 01-04-2006, the petitioner's pay was fixed in the Health Inspector Grade I. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the above pay fixation. It is also the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that as and when the pay fixation takes place, the petitioner used to give an undertaking that in the later point of time, if any excess amount was identified for repayment of the same. Therefore, when the pay fixation was in accordance with law, there cannot be any grievance for the petitioner to challenge the impugned recovery. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

4. While looking into the counter statement filed by the respondents, this Court could able to see that the pay fixation made by the respondent is based upon the Government G.O. It is also a common knowledge that the pay fixation comes within the expert domain, who are specialised in the said area. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that the pay fixation was done by any incompetent person. On perusal of the record, it was done in accordance with the rules that too by an expert. Therefore, when an expert has applied their mind and fixed the pay, the Court should be slow to interfere with any such pay fixation unless there is a patent illegality. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court could not find any patent illegality in the fixation of pay. Therefore, this Court confirms the pay fixation made by the respondent authority.

5. Coming to the recovery, this petitioner being a Group-C officer and retired on 31.07.2023, the impugned recovery order passed on 16.08.2023, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, would be against the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs Rafiq Masih (While Washer) case. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:- “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, 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”.

6. As per the above judgment, if any recovery is ordered against the retired employee and if such recovery is for beyond five years period, such recovery cannot be effected against the retired employee. Such recovery would give harsh impact upon the employee and would result in impinge upon his right to life. Therefore, in the case on hand, while perusing the records, the alleged excess amount was paid from 01.08.2010 to 31.07.2023 almost for more than 13 years, and the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2023. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order of recovery was passed subsequent to his retirement, and that the period was more than five years.

7. Apart from that, even according to the respondents' counter statement, there are no allegation that such excess pay was fixed on account of any misrepresentation of the petitioner. In such view of the above factual position, though this Court confirms the pay fixation, would like to interfere with the recovery of excess amount vide impugned order dated 16.08.2023. Therefore, the recovery order dated 16.08.2023 is set aside.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed only to the limited extent of recovery.

9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the pendency of this writ petition, no terminal benefits have been settled. Now, that the recovery order is quashed and that the pay re-fixation is confirmed. Taking into consideration of the above position, the respondent authority are directed to settle the eligible terminal benefits 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 settled within the above period, the petitioner will be entitled to have an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default .

10. With the above direction, the writ petition is partly allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 18-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nr To

1. The Deputy Director Of Health Services, Office Of The Health Services, Tiruvannamalai And District.

2. Block Medical Officer Government Block Primary Health Centre, Kalambur, Tiruvannamalai District-606 903.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 28723 of 2023 and WMP.No.28290 of 2023 18-09-2026