Recovery directions founded on a departmental order already set aside cannot stand.

The petitioner challenged the Superintending Engineer’s letter dated 4 January 2022 directing recovery of alleged excess salary paid to him following his absorption as an Accounts Clerk.

The recovery direction was based on Rural Works Department Letter No. 12402 dated 2 November 2016, which had addressed absorption from the Tracer cadre and recovery of excess payments.

The petitioner also challenged related departmental communications and sought restoration to the Accounts Clerk post.

He submitted that the 2016 departmental letter had been set aside in earlier writ proceedings, and that the decision had been upheld in appeal; the State’s special leave petition was also dismissed.

In a later proceeding, CWJC No. 1581 of 2017, the petitioner’s case was accepted as covered by the earlier judgment.

1. Whether the 4 January 2022 recovery direction, founded on Departmental Letter No. 12402 dated 2 November 2016, could be sustained after that departmental letter had been set aside in earlier proceedings.

2. Whether the other challenged letters and correspondence based on the 2016 departmental letter were legally sustainable.

The Court applied the effect of the earlier judgment dated 21 August 2017 in CWJC No. 19392 of 2016 and analogous cases, which set aside the relevant departmental letter; the judgment was upheld in appeal on 11 July 2018, and the special leave petition in the related matter was dismissed on 28 September 2018.

The Court also relied on the order dated 8 January 2026 in CWJC No. 1581 of 2017, which treated the petitioner’s case as covered by that earlier judgment.

The operative principle was that consequential action founded on a departmental direction already set aside could not be sustained.

The recovery letter expressly rested on Departmental Letter No. 12402 dated 2 November 2016.

The Court considered the prior proceedings, including the order in CWJC No. 1581 of 2017 recognizing that the petitioner’s case was covered by the earlier judgment setting aside the departmental direction.

Because the foundation for the recovery action was no longer operative, the Court held that the 4 January 2022 letter and the related correspondence based on it could not stand.

The Court set aside the recovery letter dated 4 January 2022, and declared the other letters and correspondence based on the 2 November 2016 departmental letter unsustainable in law.