Allowed

The District Treasury Officer v. D.Susairaj

Madras HC9 Nov 2017WA/1373/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih. It held that recovering overpaid pension via a voluntary consent letter was lawful, unlike the involuntary recovery in the cited precedent, and dismissed the claim for repayment.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; order of the learned Single Judge setting aside and directing repayment of recovered pension amount set aside; no costs.

The District Treasury Officer Vs D.Susairaj — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 9.11.2017

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶5

W.A.No.1373 of 2017 and

¶6

C.M.P.No.18848 of 2017

¶7

The District Treasury Officer,
(District Treasury),
Perambalur. Appellant
Versus
1. D.Susairaj
2. The Accountant General of
Tamil Nadu,
Teynampet, Mount Road,
Chennai 600 006.
Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.8.2016 passed in W.P.No.2647 of 2014 on the file of this court.

¶9

WP.No.2647 of 2014:Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to repay the recovered amount of Rs.1 19 735 with interest at the rate of 12% per Annum and pay the cost of this Writ Petition.

¶10

Challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the State was directed to repay the amount recovered from the writ petitioner relying upon the decision in STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) ((2015) 4 SCC 334), the present writ appeal has been filed.

¶11

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

¶12

The facts of the case required for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:-

¶13

Consequent to the revision of the pay as per the V Pay Commission, the pension payable to the writ petitioner, who retired on 30.8.2016, was wrongly calculated and subsequently, based on the objection raised by the internal audit, it was found that some amount seems to have been paid in excess and hence, ordered for recovery and a consent letter was obtained from the writ petitioner on 28.11.2011, wherein he has given consent for recovery of the amount in monthly instalments basis. Accordingly, he has paid a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and the entire amount has been recovered. After completion of the installation, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2014, contending that the said recovery is illegal relying upon the decision as cited supra.

¶14

We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who took notice at the time of admission.

¶15

Our attention has been drawn to the decision in the White Washer's case wherein it has been held that such a recovery is impersmissible. But, the case on hand, in its facts and circumstances, stand on a different footing for more than one reason. Firstly, when the mistake in calculation of the pension was found out during the month of August 2011 and recovery was started from October 2011 till June 2013 based on the consent given by the writ petitioner, the writ petition has been filed in the year 2014. In the case relied upon by the writ petitioner, he had moved the court in time, but, in the case on hand, the writ petitioner has not moved this court in time and further, he had submitted himself for recovery of the amount paid in excess in monthly instalments as per the consent letter dated 28.11.2011 and subsequently, the entire amount as claimed in the audit objection also seems to have been recovered but, only thereafter, he has filed the writ petition for return of the recovered amount. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment cited supra, relied upon by the writ petitioner will not come to his rescue. In that view of the matter, we uphold the contentions of the learned Additional Government Pleader.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

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

¶22

To:

¶23

The District Treasury Officer, (District Treasury), Perambalur.

¶24

The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu,

¶25

Teynampet, Mount Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶26

+1 cc to the Govt Pleader sr 80133 +1 cc to M/s.V.Vijayshankar Advocate sr 79084 +1 cc to M/s.R.Prem Narayan Advocate sr 79517 W.A.No.1373 of 2017

¶27

ss(co) aa12/12/2017

¶28

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

The District Treasury Officer v. D.Susairaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Treasury Officer v. D.Susairaj

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

E.Shankaran Vs the Secretary to Government

P.A. Son Francis Vs Glory Rosaline

Secretary to Government of Vs K.Madalaimuthum

R.Paranthaman, Vs The Joint Registrar of Co-op

The Joint Managing Director Vs the Presiding Officer

Dr.P.Sakthivel, Vs State of Tamilnadu