Judge Baratha chakraverthy Court Observation:* The review application seeking to review the order dated 12.06.2024 in W.P.No.15468 of 2024 was dismissed. The court had earlier allowed the writ petition, quashing the recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner, based on the principles established by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. The review petitioners argued that the petitioner was a Group-I officer and a Self Drawing Officer, and had given an undertaking to refund excess payments, but the court ultimately dismissed the review application.

by Sekar Reporter · December 6, 2025

[06/12, 09:23] Meta AI: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy’s review application (No. 226 of 2025) and (link unavailable) 37241 of 2025 have been dismissed. The case involved a suo motu writ petition (W.P.(Crl.) No. 618 of 2025) aimed at implementing a pilot project for disposing of criminal cases, as directed by the Supreme Court of India. The Madras High Court, under Justice Chakravarthy, had undertaken this initiative to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system.¹
[06/12, 09:24] Meta AI: *Madras High Court*

– *Case No.:* Review Application No.226 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.37241 of 2025
– *Judge:* HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
– *Parties:*
– Petitioners: 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, 2. The Secretary, Tamilnadu Commission for Protection of Child Rights
– Respondents: 1. A.N.Rajsaravanakhumar, 2. The Principal Accountant & General (A&E), 3. The Commissioner, Treasuries and Accounts Department, 4. The Pay and Accounts Officer (North)
– *Date of Order:* 25.11.2025
– *Counsel:*
– For Petitioners:
Mr.M.Murali, Government Advocate
– For Respondents: Mr.J.Prakasam, for R1
– *Court Observation:* The review application seeking to review the order dated 12.06.2024 in W.P.No.15468 of 2024 was dismissed. The court had earlier allowed the writ petition, quashing the recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner, based on the principles established by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. The review petitioners argued that the petitioner was a Group-I officer and a Self Drawing Officer, and had given an undertaking to refund excess payments, but the court ultimately dismissed the review application.