This court dismissed a writ appeal filed by state officials against a lower court order. The lower court had quashed recovery proceedings against a retired government employee's family pension, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih.
The writ appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 5/12/2018
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.A.No.2673 of 2018
and
CMP Nos.21743 and 21744 of 2018
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/8/2017 made in W.P.No.8039 of 2016.
Prayer in WP No.8039/2016 : Writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to Call for the records relating to the order passed by the 5th respondent in Na.Ka.NO. 15942/2015/L1 dated 27.11.2015 & RC. No. 15942/2015/L1 dated 27.11.2015 quash the same and further direct the respondents 2 to 5 to refund the recovery made from the petitioner and to continue to pay Family Pension treating the petitioner Husbands last drawn Salary as 3700-5700 with corresponding pay scale revision based on various Pay Commission recommendations
For Appellants : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.Venkatasamy Babu J U D G E M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J)
Instant writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 17/8/2017 made in W.P.No.8039 of 2016, by which the writ Court, set aside the recovery proceedings, in R.C.No.15942/2015/L1, dated 24/11/2015 and 27/11/2015, respectively, issued by the Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Tirupur District/fifth appellant herein and directed that the amount already recovered shall be reimbursed to the petitioner therein and further, directed the respondents to continue to pay family pension drawn by the husband of the respondent.
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be
impermissble in law:
(i). Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D Service). (ii). Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii). Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv). Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v). In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
Sd/Assistant Registrar //True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mvs.
To
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court's decision to set aside recovery proceedings against a retired government employee was correct in light of Supreme Court precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq MasihFollowed¶14
State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih {2015 (4) SCC - 334} · Who else cites this
State of Tamil Nadu and others
K.M. Kamalam
S. MANIKUMAR
SUBRAMANIUM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
