Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an order of refixation of pay and consequential recovery issued by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and other authorities against B. Rajasekar, an employee, based on audit objections. The employee challenged the refixation and recovery through a writ petition before the Madras High Court. The Single Judge, after considering the matter, noted that there was misrepresentation by the employee regarding the refixation, and held that the refixation had to be confirmed. Accordingly, the scale of pay was to be paid as per the applicable pay rules and government orders. However, while confirming the refixation, the Single Judge directed the authorities to refund the excess salary that had already been recovered from the employee, relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, which restrict recovery of excess payments from employees in certain circumstances. Aggrieved by the direction to refund, the State authorities preferred a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The Division Bench, comprising Justices S. M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar, heard the appeal and, with the consent of both parties, took it up for final disposal. The Court examined the order of the Single Judge and found no infirmity in it. It held that the refund direction was in consonance with the principles in Rafiq Masih, and that the writ appeal was without merit. Consequently, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, and directed the appellants to refund the amount recovered from the employee within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Salary - Recovery from employees based on audit objections - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The writ petitioner challenged an order of refixation of pay and recovery based on audit objections. The Single Judge confirmed the refixation but directed refund of excess salary already recovered, relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334. On appeal by the State, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal finding no infirmity, and held that the refund must be made within twelve weeks. Held that the recovery was impermissible under the principles in Rafiq Masih, even where refixation was valid. (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Single Judge erred in directing refund of recovered excess salary despite confirming the refixation of pay.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, finding no infirmity in the Single Judge's order. The appellants were directed to refund the amount recovered from the respondent within twelve weeks. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Recovery of excess payments from employees
- equitable considerations
- State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334
- pay fixation rules
- audit objections
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 131
WA No. 2078 of 2026 and CMP No. 18054 of 2026
S. M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar
Citation not available, 2026:MHC:2905
Dr.R.Gouri, Mr.M.Gunasekar
The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai; The Deputy Director of Health and Services, Villupuram; The Block Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre, Radhapuram, Vikravadi Block, Villupuram District-501
B Rajasekar, The Accountant General A and E, Chennai, The Pay and Accounts Officer South, Chennai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Service law dispute regarding refixation of pay and recovery of excess salary.
Remedy Sought
The State appellants sought to set aside the order dated 09.07.2025 in W.P.No.24782 of 2025, which directed refund of recovered excess salary despite confirming the refixation.
Filing Reason
The State contended that the single judge erred in directing refund of the excess amount already recovered, given that the refixation was found valid.
Previous Decisions
The single judge of the Madras High Court in W.P.No.24782 of 2025 dated 09.07.2025 confirmed the refixation of pay but directed refund of recovered excess salary based on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih.
Issues
Whether the single judge's order directing refund of excess salary recovered from the employee, while confirming the refixation of pay, was valid in law.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants (State) contended that the Single Judge erred in directing refund after confirming the refixation of pay.
Respondent employee relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih to argue that recovery of excess salary was not permissible.
Ratio Decidendi
The recovery of excess salary from an employee, already effected, was impermissible under the equity-based principles established in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, and the employer must refund the recovered amount even if the pay refixation is valid.
Judgment Excerpts
The Writ Court considered the issues and taking note of the fact that there was misrepresentation on the part of the respondent / employee regarding refixation, held that it has to be confirmed and the scale of pay as applicable to the first respondent has to be paid in accordance with the pay rules and the government orders. While confirming the refixation, the writ court directed to refund the excess salary already recovered from the respondent in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334.
We find no infirmity in the writ order impugned and consequently the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. ... The appellants are directed to refund the amount recovered from the respondent within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Procedural History
The respondent filed W.P.No.24782 of 2025 challenging an order of refixation of pay and consequential recovery issued by the appellants based on audit objections. The Single Judge of the Madras High Court, by order dated 09.07.2025, confirmed the refixation but directed refund of the excess salary already recovered, relying on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih. Aggrieved by the direction for refund, the State appellants preferred the present writ appeal. The Division Bench, with consent of both parties, took up the appeal for final hearing and dismissed it on 15.07.2026.
