Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DAILYLAW 4861 (MAD)

THE STATE OF TAMILNADU, v. AMUTHA

WA(MD)/605/2023 · 2026-06-08

M Jothiraman, N Sathish Kumar

Transfer Petitionbody2023

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.A(MD)No.605 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.06.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN W.A(MD)No.605 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.5639 of 2023 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The District Education Officer, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 4.The Block Education Officer, Peravurani, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District. ... Appellants/Respondents vs. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.605 of 2023 S.Amutha ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 23.09.2022 made in W.P(MD)No.4437 of 2022. For Appellants : Mr.M.S.Parthiban Counsel for State For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.) Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge partly allowing the writ petition, respondents in the writ petition have filed the present writ appeal. 2. The impugned order in the writ petition was passed based on an audit report for recovery of an amount. Challenging the same, the respondent filed the writ petition seeking to quash the recovery. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.605 of 2023 3. As far as recovery is concerned, the law is well settled. Recovery cannot be effected after a period of five years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, has categorically held that recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year from the date of the recovery order, is legally impermissible. However, when a pay anomaly has been rectified and pay has been properly fixed, the same cannot be questioned by the appellants. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the recovery is confirmed. 4. In view of the above, the writ appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.] 08.06.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No am 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.605 of 2023 N.SATHISH KUMAR ,J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN ,J. am W.A(MD)No.605 of 2023 DATED : 08.06.2026 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis