O.Oblichetty v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.11.2022 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and W.M.P.Nos.36067 of 2019 & 8707 of 2020 O.Oblichetty ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal secretary to the Government, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Treasury officer, O/o. District Treasury Collectorate Campus, Salem 636 001.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.10668 / 2019 / J1 dated 19.11.2019 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and directing the 1st respondent to revise the petitioner pension on the basis of the minimum pension as per the 2 (iv) of G.O.Ms.No. 235, Finance Department dated 01.06.2009. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jayaraman For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
The order of recovery issued by the second respondent in proceeding dated 19.11.2019, is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Higher Grade Teacher on 17.08.1959 and was promoted to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher on 01.10.1960. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 30.04.1996, on attaining the age of superannuation. The benefits of revision of pay and pension was granted in favour of the writ petitioner pursuant to the Government Order, during the relevant point of time.
3. In the present case, the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.216 Finance (Pay Cell), dated 22.03.1993, was extended and accordingly the pension of the petitioner was revised. However, there was an Audit Objection in respect of the revision of pay, granted to the writ petitioner. Based on the Audit Objection, the second respondent Treasury Officer issued the impugned order of recovery, stating that excess payment of pension was made to the petitioner on account of erroneous revision of pay.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that no show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner and therefore, the order
impugned is in violation of the Principles Of Natural Justice. That apart, the excess amount is sought to be recovered after the retirement of the writ petitioner and the petitioner being a pensioner, such a recovery cannot be made.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected to the said contentions by stating that the revision of pay was granted erroneously and the authorities have corrected the mistake that occurred in the revision of scale of pay and thus, there is no infirmity and therefore, the writ petition is to be rejected.
6. There is no impediment for the authorities to correct the mistake, even if any occurred while revising the scale of pay of an employee. While correcting the mistake, if the authorities found that an excess salary/pension was paid, then it cannot be recovered from a retired employee after several years. Recovering the excess payment from the pensioners would cause hardship to the pensioners and therefore, the Courts have repeatedly held that in the absence of any misrepresentation or an undertaking by the employees/pensioners, the excess amount paid, cannot be recovered.
7. In the present case, the respondent would not be able to establish that there was a misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioner, who was a pensioner at the time of the revision of the scale of pay. More so, there is no undertaking and further, the petitioner is a senior citizen, receiving a pension and in the event of recovery, hardship would be caused to him.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to correct the scale of pay as applicable to the writ petitioner and accordingly, pay the pension in accordance with the pay rules and the Government Order in force. However, the excess payment already made to the petitioner cannot be recovered pursuant to the impugned order dated 19.11.2019.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the second respondent, in proceeding Rc.No.10668/2019/J1, Dated 19.11.2019, is quashed to the extent of recovery alone.
10. Accordingly, the writ petitioner stands partly allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed 15.11.2022 sha Internet : Yes Index : Yes Speaking order To,
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal secretary to the Government, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Treasury officer, O/o. District Treasury Collectorate Campus, Salem 636 001.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
sha
and W.M.P.Nos.36067 of 2019 & 8707 of 2020 15.11.2022