Quashed

K.Arunagiri v. the Dist. Adhi Dravidar and

Madras HC10 Mar 2014WP/6965/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed impugned recovery orders regarding excess pension payments. It held that recovery is impermissible when payment errors stem from departmental negligence rather than employee fraud, and recovery without notice or hearing violates natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders passed by the first respondent to recover excess payment are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed.

K.Arunagiri Vs the Dist. Adhi Dravidar and — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.03.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

¶5

W.P.Nos.6965 of 2007 (OA.No.4253 of 2002)

¶6

WP.Nos.7403 & 7404 of 2007 (OA.Nos.4306 & 4307 of 2002)

¶7

Arunagiri .. Petitioner in WP.6965/2007 K.Dravidamani .. Petitioner in WP.7403/2007 S.Ramalingam .. Petitioner in WP.7404/2007

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Adhi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Cuddalore.

¶10

The Special Tahsildar ADW, Virudhachalam . respondent in all the WPs

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petitions, having been transferred from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.4253, 4306 and 4307 of 2002 respectively, is filed to call for the records of the first respondent relating to his proceedings dated 24.12.2001 made in W.7/73438/2000 and to quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Radhakrishnan

¶13

For Respondents : M/s.S.Navaneetham, AGP.

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

The short point that arises for consideration herein is as to whether the petitioners are liable to repay the excess amount which is paid to them by erroneous fixation of their pay by the department without any fraudulent act or misrepresentation from their side.

¶16

The issue involved herein is already dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench and single judge of this Court on more than one occasion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the authority reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 (Sahib Ram V. State of Haryana and others) observed that for upgraded pay scale given due to wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned without any misrepresentation by the employee, the employee cannot

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

be held to be fault and under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the employee.

¶19

3.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2009 (1) Supreme 163 Syed abdul Qadir and others V. State of Bihar and others has laid down that the recovery of excess amount not paid on any account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, is not permissible and whenever any excess amount is paid due to negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned, the employee cannot be punished by effecting recovery.

¶20

The Division Bench of this court in the decision reported in (2006) 1 MLJ 143 (D.Palavesamuthu v.Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal represented by its Registrar, Chennai and others) was of the view that the course and method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be appreciated in the case of the petitioner. Even if it is accepted for argument sake that salary of the petitioner is fixed in a wrong scale of pay, it is a fault committed by the department and the officers, for which the petitioner should not be penalised after lapse of number of years that too after retirement of the petitioner.

¶21

The Division Bench of this Court in 2009 (5) MLJ 1 Chief Engineer (General) Public Works department, Chennai-5 V. M.Thanasekaran has observed that if the excess payment is made by the State even though by mistake, such excess payment cannot be recovered. The same view was also expressed by the learned single judge of this Court in (2009) 8 MLJ 621 P.Seethalakshmi V. District Treasury Officer, Madurai and another wherein this Court has set aside the recovery order issued without any notice and without even any written order to the petitioner. While doing so, it is also observed therein that the action of the respondents in effecting recovery from pension without even any written order is highly arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and even the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice was not observed, while taking an adverse decision to effect recovery of the pension. In the latest judgment of this Court reported in 2014 WLR 171 K.Kumaran V. Central Pension Accounting Office, Trikoot-2 and others the amount which was recovered from the pension as excess payment is directed to be refunded to the employee.

¶22

In my considered view, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and our High Court in the decisions cited above are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein the excess amount paid is not on the basis of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and the

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

recovery orders are issued without any notice to the petitioners and without seeking any explanation for the same and without giving them any personal hearing, as such, the same are perse arbitrary, contrary to law and stand vitiated.

¶25

In the result, the impugned orders passed by the first respondent stand quashed and all the writ petitions are accordingly ordered. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS IV )
Dated: 30.5.2014
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
tsh
To
1. The District Adhi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer,
Cuddalore.
2. The Special Tahsildar ADW,
Virudhachalam
1 cc to Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, Advocate, sr. 11531
WP.Nos.6965, 7403 & 7404 of 2007
KM (CO)
kk 30/5

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Arunagiri v. the Dist. Adhi Dravidar and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Arunagiri v. the Dist. Adhi Dravidar and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Unnamalai Vs the Inspector of Police

T.John Bose Vs State Bank of India

K.Chinnappan Vs the District Adi Dravidar

G.Rajagopal Vs Subha Shree Finance Corporatio

P.Shanmugam @ Shanmuga Vs State, Rep.by the Inspector of

M.Krishnan Vs the Dy Inspector Genl of Polic