, the High Court set aside an order directing repayment of excess pension on audit reports due to lack of a show cause notice. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after affording the petitioner a personal hearing.
Impugned order of recovery set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration with personal hearing.
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 :17.09.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.612 of 2019 and WMP.Nos. 4870 and 650 of 2019
L. R. Ganesan ..Petitioner
vs
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records pertaining to proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8668/2018/M1 dated 12.12.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents 2 to 4 to continue to pay the revised pension as before which is being received by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr. V. Kadirvelu, Spl. G.P.
O R D E R
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined as Chemistry Lecturer in 5th respondent College on June 1951 and thereafter the petitioner became Professor and Head of the Department in the year 1964. The petitioner retired from service on 29.03.1987. At the time of retirement, his pension amount was fixed as Rs.1,111/- which was revised from time to time. At present, the petitioner have been receiving Rs.75,869/- per month. The petitioner received a proceedings dated 12.12.2018 from the 3rd respondent stating that an excess of Rs.16,49,615/- had been paid to the petitioner towards pension as found by the audit report. The impugned proceedings also calls upon the petitioner to pay the entire amount in one installment. On receiving the same, petitioner caused a legal notice to the 3rd respondent on 24.12.2018 stating that no particulars of amounts, dates of payment or other details have been furnished and without issuing a show cause notice passing the order of recovery is bad in law accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
Assistant Registrar (Insp Cell)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mrn
To
+1cc to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate, S.R.No. 79958 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 80181
W.P.No.612 of 2019 and WMP.Nos. 4870 and 650 of 2019
NRL(CO) GN(18/10/2019)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order of recovery of alleged excess pension without issuing a show cause notice is maintainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
L. R. Ganesan
Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary, Higher Education, Chennai
Principal Accountant General, Office of the Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlement) Tamil Nadu
Pension Pay Officer, Pension Pay Office, Chennai
The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region
The Secretary, Madura College
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
