MADRAS HC dismissed a writ petition seeking refund of recovered pension arrears. The court found the petitioner did not substantiate coercion in signing the No Objection Certificate and noted a filing delay, finding the recovery legal under pension rules.
Writ petition dismissed with no costs.
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
Orders Reserved on 13.11.2018 Orders prounced on 1.2.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.2047 of 2011
T.Sundaramoorthy ...Petitioner
Vs. 1 The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary, Finance (Pension Dept.), Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2 The Financial Adviser/Chief Accounts Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3 The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram.
4 The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Villupuram, Villupuram District.
5 The Accountant General O/f Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. ...Respondents
Prayer:- The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the recovery of a sum of Rs.3,17,969/- from the DCRG in request of the petitioner is null and void on the ground that the respondents 2 and 3 have wrongly paid the excess payment while the petitioner was in service, and direct the respondents 2 and 3 to refund the attached amount along with the amount sanctioned as per the proceedings of the 5th respondent Accountant General, dated 1.9.2010 in No.AG (A & E) Pen.P09/3/Rev.2010-2011/ 20901619/GPO with 18% of interest from the date of his retirement.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Nixon For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, G.A. For Respondent No.5 : Mr.S.Balaji
O R D E R
According to the petitioner, petitioner was working as Secondary Grade Teacher in Adi Dravidar Students hostel, Siruvanthadu, Villupuram and retired from service on 31.5.2008. On 21.5.2009, the second respondent sent a communication to the third respondent stating that by wrong fixation of salary, excess salary has been paid to the petitioner. On 8.2.2010, the third respondent sent a communication to the fourth respondent granting no audit objection for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,17,959/-. The Director of the Adi dravidar Welfare Department instructed the Special Tahsildar stating that the salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed and paid from the year 1.6.1988 till February 2000 and instructed to amend the register as if the department has given Selection Grade from 1.6.1988 which he is not eligible. Accordingly, 4th respondent issued proceedings in Na.Ka.No.360/ 2010, dated 16.12.2010 for recovery of a sum of Rs.Rs.3,17,959/ from the terminal benefits of the petitioner and the same was deducted by the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, without any notice or enquiry, recovery order has been passed after retirement. The petitioner was not served recovery order. Under coercion, signature was obtained in bond paper from the petitioner by the fourth respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for refund of the aforesaid amount.
Rs.3,17,959/- from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. The recovery represents excess payment of pay and allowances by erroneous pay fixation i.e. Rs.2,98,570/- and deduction on account of irregularities committed during his tenure i.e. Rs.19,389/-, totally a sum of Rs.3,17,959/- had been recovered by the fourth respondent from and out of the DCRG payable to the petitioner. Further, it is also submitted by the fourth respondent that as per Note 1 of Rule 70 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the expression "ascertainable Government dues" includes inter alia over-payment of pay and allowances. As per Proviso to Rule 9 of the said Rules, in case, there is any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, the Government shall have the right of ordering recovery from the pension or DCRG of the whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused by misconduct or negligence.
there is no explanation for the delay of nearly one year, in filing the writ petition and the allegations found in the affidavit. Further, petitioner has not established before this Court that the recovery made by the respondent is illegal and against the provisions of law. It is clear from the fact that the allegation is only an afterthought and there is no material placed before this Court to substantiate the allegation that the respondent has obtained "No objection Certificate" in the bond paper from the petitioner by coercive method. On the contrary, the respondent has stated that the petitioner has given No objection certificate to deduct the excess amount paid to the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the same is rejected. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition.
In view of the foregoings, the writ petition cannot be
entertained and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No
Costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vaan
To
1.The Secretary,
Finance (Pension Department),
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Financial Adviser/Chief Accounts Officer,
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
3.The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer,
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
4.The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
Villupuram, Villupuram District.
5.The Accountant General
O/f Accountant General,
Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018.
+1cc to Mr.A.R.Nixon, Advocate, S.R.No.9043 +1cc to Mr.S.Balaji, Advocate, S.R.No.8578 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.9138
W.P.No.2047 of 2011
VSNII(CO)
rrs 26/02/2019.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the recovery of excess salary paid during service from the petitioner's terminal benefits after retirement without an enquiry is maintained.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the declaration that the recovery order is null and void since the No Objection Certificate was allegedly obtained by coercion.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAFIQ MASIHReferred¶23
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAFIQ MASIH [AIR 2015 SC 696] · Who else cites this
T.Sundaramoorthy
The State of Tamilnadu
The Financial Adviser/Chief Accounts Officer, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department
The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, Villupuram
The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Villupuram
The Accountant General
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
