W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 24.02.2026 Pronounced on : 30.06.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 and WMP(MD)Nos.1494 and 1497 of 2026 Siva. Chellappa ... Petitioner versus 1. The Accountant General (A&E), No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. 2. The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai. 3. The Treasury Officer, O/o. The District Treasury, Theni District. 4. The Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury Office, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. ... Respondents 1/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 4th respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.1562640/2025/a2 dated 05.12.2025 and quash the same and to consequently, forbear the respondents from recovering any amount from the Petitioner's Pension Account PPO No.C269167/AGR in future. For Petitioner : M/s.M.Shunmalar For R1 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran, Standing Counsel For R2 to R4 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner had joined the service as Deputy Agricultural Officer, on 01.11.1973 and retired as Joint Director of Agriculture on 31.10.2009 and he has been receiving pension from the office of the third respondent. While so, the petitioner was issued with the impugned order of recovery dated 05.12.2025, issued by the fourth respondent, that he has been inadvertently paid with the enhanced pension and therefore, the excess amount paid to him is ordered to be recovered. Aggrieved over 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The only ground raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the recovery of excess amount from the pension amount is illegal and against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) and others [(2015) 4 SCC 334]. It is also contended that even assuming that there was an error in paying the revised pension to the petitioner, this fault is on the part of the officials and not due to any misrepresentation or fraud committed on the part of the petitioner. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Accountant General and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that in view of G.O.Ms.No.702, Finance (Pension) dated 07.10.1998, the petitioner is not entitled for the revised pension, however, inadvertently, the revised pension has been paid to him. Therefore, the impugned order of recovery has been passed. 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Accountant General and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4, referred to Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others [(2012) 8 SCC 417] and in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh [2016 Writ L.R. 1030] and submitted that any excess amount paid without the authority of law is liable to be recovered. They have also placed the undertaking given by the petitioner that if any amount has been paid in excess, it can be recovered. 5.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record. 6. The petitioner joined the service as Deputy Agricultural Officer on 01.11.1973 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, as Joint Director of Agriculture on 31.10.2009 and he has been receiving pension. There was an anomaly in the revised pension. Therefore, the impugned order of recovery has been passed. 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 7. The petitioner has not taken any stand that he is entitled for the excess amount as provided to him. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order of recovery is illegal and against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) and others [(2015) 4 SCC 334]. 8.In Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others [(2012) 8 SCC 417], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any amount paid without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships. The relevant portion is extracted as under for easy reference: “14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as “taxpayers' money” which belongs neither to the officers who have effected overpayment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not, may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 by the government officers may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism, etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment. 15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that except few instances pointed out in Syed Abdul Qadir case and in Col.B.J.Akkara case, the excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be recovered.” 9.The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case has been referred to a three-Judge Bench that the view expressed in Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case is differing from the views expressed in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521] and in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18]. However, the three-judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 of Punjab and others v. Rafiq masih (Whitewasher)[(2014) 8 SCC 883] held that the decision in Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case which was passed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in laying down the law and the other two judgments are passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, on equity to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which do not comprise the ratio decidendi and closed the reference as unnecessary and held as under: “13. Therefore, in our opinion, the decisions of the Court based on different scales of Article 136 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be best weighed on the same grounds of reasoning and thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no conflict in the views expressed in the first two judgments (Shyam Babu Verma's case and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana's case) and the latter judgment (Chandi Prasad Uniyal's case). 14. In that view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that reference was unnecessary. Therefore, without answering the reference, we send back the matters to the Division Bench for their appropriate disposal. Ordered accordingly.” 10.Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has illustrated certain instances wherein recovery would be impermissible in State of Punjab 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 and others vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) and others [(2015) 4 SCC 334] and the petitioner has placed reliance on the same to contend that recovery is not permissible in his case. The relevant portion is extracted as under: “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 (for 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 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 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.” 11.It is the case of the petitioner that he is a retired employee and hence, he falls under Category (ii) of the aforesaid judgment. It is further contended that since the excess amount has been paid by mistake on the part of the officials and not on his misrepresentation, the same cannot be recovered from the petitioner. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh [2016 Writ L.R. 1030] has clarified that the principle provided under Category (ii) would not be applicable in all circumstances and in cases where the employee concerned provides an undertaking that the excess payments can be recovered, then recovery is permitted from the concerned employee. The relevant portion is extracted as under: “11. The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking. 12. For these reasons, the judgment of the High Court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. However, we are of the view that the recovery should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years.” 12.Further, a Division Bench of this Court, in a recent order dated 28.04.2026, passed in M.Kayambu vs. District Munsiff and others [W.P.(MD)No.14802 of 2020], has held as under: “9.''Do not covet'' is a upanishadic injunction. Our tradition mandates that we should not hold on to something to which we are not entitled. One can only retain the fruits of one's honest labour. Morality demanded that the petitioner on his own had informed the employer about the wrong fixation. But then, the petitioner chose to happily keep quiet. This was clearly immoral. The petitioner cannot plead ignorance. In writ jurisdiction, a considerable chunk of cases are service matters. Their volume was so high that Administrative Tribunals were constituted and conferred with exclusive jurisdiction. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act enables us to make presumptions regarding normal human conduct. Every Government employee is so particular about increments and 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 his pay. He will not keep quiet if he is given lesser pay. Only if the employee is so naïve, he would not have noticed that he had been paid in excess. In any event, we are not naïve to believe that the petitioner was so innocent as not to have found out that his pay had been wrongly fixed on the higher side. 10.We go to a shop. The shopkeeper by mistake gives excess amount as change. It is our duty to go back and return it to him. We are in the age of digital transactions. Sometimes by mistake, amounts could be wrongly credited to our account. It would be an offence if we appropriate them for our benefit. In such matters, even if the employee had not made any false representation or committed fraud, he would not be justified in retaining it. That is why, in Chandi Prasad Uniyal, it was remarked that they are irrelevant considerations. There could be situations when the employee might genuinely believe that he had been paid what he is entitled. Those cases would attract White Washer principles. But if a reasonable person can discover very easily that he has been paid in excess and he chooses to retain the benefit unjustly conferred on him, White Washer principles will not apply. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in almost all the decisions held that the rule against recovery is more an equitable rule and that the employee has no legal right as such. It is well settled that a person who seeks equity must do equity. The conduct of a person invoking writ jurisdiction must be free of any kind of blame. One whose hands are sullied is not entitled to any indulgence at the hands of this court. 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 11.Since we have given a definite finding that the petitioner knew fully well that he had been paid in excess, we propose to apply the law laid down in Chandi Prasad Uniyal in the light of the three Judges Bench in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar. White Washer principles were laid down by a two Judges Bench. Chandi Prasad Uniyal is also by a two Judges Bench. It was endorsed by a Three Judges Bench in White Washer reference. Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar is by a Three Judges Bench. As already mentioned, the conduct of the petitioner cannot be lost sight of as he is invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court.” 13.The petitioner was paid with the revised pension in an erroneous manner. Though there may not be any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner kept quiet and has been paid with public money. Therefore, the excess payment received by him is liable to be recovered. Moreover, the petitioner has given undertaking that if any amount has been paid in excess, it can be recovered from him. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is covered under Jagdev Singh's case as cited supra and the petitioner is not entitled to retain the excess payment made to him. However, if the amount has not been recovered from the petitioner so far, the respondents shall recover the same in installments 12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 from the petitioner. 14.In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 30.06.2026 ogy Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. NCC : Yes / No. To 1. The Accountant General (A&E), No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. 2. The Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai. 3. The Treasury Officer, O/o. The District Treasury, Theni District. 4. The Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury Office, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. 13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 B.PUGALENDHI, J. ogy Pre-delivery order made in W.P.(MD)No.1904 of 2026 30.06.2026 14/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis