WP/25826/2023 of D.PAWEL JOHNSON Vs THE DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT on 16 September 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order issued by the second respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.C.1/0869/2019 dated 03.02.2020 and consequently to direct the respondents: (i) to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner and (ii) to restore the petitioner's pay to the scale of Rs.5,200 – Rs.20,200 + Grade Pay of Rs.2,400, as fixed by the second respondent vide proceedings Na.Ka.No.C1/3869/2014 dated 30.06.2014, along with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a cleaner in the erstwhile Tiruppur Municipality vide order dated 13.01.1995 in the regular time scale of pay. In the year 2014, his pay was refixed in the scale of Rs.5,200 – Rs.20,200 + G.P. Rs.2,400 notionally with effect from 01.01.2006, with monetary benefits from 01.04.2013. However, on the verge of his retirement, the respondent issued the impugned order dated 03.02.2020, directing the recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner beyond his entitlement since 01.01.2014. It is also submitted that a sum of approximately Rs.2,88,000/- has already been recovered so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner, upon proper instructions, states that the petitioner does not dispute the refixation of pay but restricts his claim only to the extent of challenging the recovery. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is a Class-IV employee, no recovery can be made from him in view of the settled legal position in the White Washer's case.

3. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that they issued the impugned order of recovery based upon an audit objection raised by the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Tiruppur, vide Para No.72/2013-14. It is submitted that the said report was communicated by the Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, and the present recovery was effected only based upon the same. It is also the submission of the respondents that when the refixation was made, an undertaking was given by the employee to repay the amount if any excess payment was found in the future. Therefore, the mere issuance of the recovery order will in no way affects the petitioner’s rights, as the petitioner himself had undertaken to repay the excess amount. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of this petition.

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

5. Before proceeding further against the recovery, this Court makes it clear that the petitioner, on proper instructions, has not disputed his pay fixation, but only disputes the recovery. Coming to the recovery, it appears that based upon the Local Fund Audit Department's report, the recovery was effected from 2014. According to the respondents, the pay was fixed on the higher side and the monetary benefits have been paid since 2014, over and above the entitlement of the petitioner, which led to the passing of the impugned order.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, and for ready reference, Paragraph No.18 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 recover.”

7. As per the above ratio, no recovery can be ordered against Class-III (Group 'C') and Class-IV (Group 'D') employees. Admittedly, this petitioner, being a Class-IV employee being working as a cleaner in the respondent corporation, his case is squarely covered within the ratio of the White Washer's case. Therefore, this Court finds every justification to interfere with the impugned order of recovery. At this juncture, the petitioner submits that the respondents have already recovered the amount, but the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent denies the same.

8. In view of the above disputed facts, this Court, while interfering with the recovery order by setting aside the same, directs the respondents to refund the amount if the same has already been recovered from the petitioner. However, the refixation of pay stands confirmed.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is partly allowed as indicated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 16-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NSL To

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

2. The Commissioner, Tiruppur Corporation, Tiruppur

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NSL WP No. 25826 of 2023 16-09-2026