WA No. 2177 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR WA No. 2177 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 18893 OF 2026 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its Additional Chief Secretary To The Government, Home (Police) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Director General Of Police L And O (Head Of Police Force), Office Of The Director General Of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 3. The Commissioner Of Police Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai 7. 4. The Joint Commissioner Of Police Greater Chennai Police, Traffic Zone (South), Chennai. ..Appellants Vs 1. G.Ravichandran 2. The Principal Accountant General A And E Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Chennai. ..Respondent(s) Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated30.06.2025 made in WP.No.22533 of 2025. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2177 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 For Appellant(s): Dr.R.Gouri, Government Counsel For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Sivanesan for R1 Order (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) State preferred the present appeal challenging the order dated 30.06.2025 passed in W.P.No.22533 of 2025. 2. With the consent of both parties, the writ appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. An order of refixation of pay and consequential recovery order was issued based on the audit objections. The first respondent / writ petitioner challenged the said refixation of pay and recovery. 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 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2177 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 4. In view of the facts and circumstances, the revision of pay effected pursuant to the Audit Objection is confirmed, but the recovery of excess pay alone is set aside. In respect of the excess salary paid to an employee, the employee is entitled for refund of the amount already recovered in view of the ratio laid down by the Courts. Accordingly, the writ appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 27-07-2026 KST https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No. 2177 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR J. KST WA No. 2177 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 18893 OF 2026 27-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis