N.Mani, v. The Chairman,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and W.M.P.No.20569 of 2018 N.Mani
...Petitioner
-Vs1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Mount Road, Chennai - 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Tiruvannamalai District.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in foj vz; nk/bgh/- epgp/5-ep/c/3/-nfh/jzpf;if-2017. dated 13.04.2018 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Nixon For Respondents : Mr.K.Rajkumar 1/6
ORDER
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, has held that recovery of excess payment made, owing to the fault of the department, cannot be recovered from a retired employee.
2. In the instant case, the petitioner herein had retired from service on 31.12.2015 in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Owing to certain audit objections dated 24.06.2017 and 29.06.2017, the respondent has sought for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,57,016/- and Rs.91,207/- from the petitioner herein, by stating that the excess payment of EOL without pay for a period of 823 days was wrongly paid.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is a retired employee and the excess payment made to him was not within his knowledge, the respondent cannot recover the same, for which purpose, he placed reliance on the decision in White Washer's case (supra). 2/6
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and submitted that the White Washer's case is not applicable to the petitioner and that since the petitioner was aware that excess payment has been made, the same can be recovered.
5. The ratio laid down in Jagdev Singh's case is that when the officer to whom the excess payment has been made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice and any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded, then the ratio laid down in White Washer's case will not be made applicable.
6. Admittedly, the respondent had not placed on notice to the petitioner that the excess payment would be required to be refunded. In the absence of the same, the decision in Jagdev Singh's case would not be applicable.
7. The impugned order is also likely to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. As stated earlier, the petitioner herein 3/6
had retired from service on 31.12.2015 and after about three years, the respondents have passed the present impugned order without any prior notice calling for his objections. On this ground also, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
8. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 13.04.2018 passed by the second respondent is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15.12.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order hvk 4/6
To 1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Mount Road, Chennai - 600 002.
2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Tiruvannamalai District.
5/6
M.S.RAMESH,J.
hvk W.P.No.
17291 of 2018 15.12.2022 6/6