Remanded¶28

T.S.Venkataraman v. the Commissioner of

Madras HC10 Jun 2025WP(MD)/9997/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pension pay refixation and recovery order set aside for want of show cause notice; violation of natural justice; certiorari under Article 226; matter remitted to Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Palani for fresh orders on merits after show cause notice and reply; Treasuries & Accounts Department respondents; writ disposed of, no costs, connected WMPs closed; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, single Judge, decision dated 10.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.03.2019 set aside; matter remitted to the third respondent (Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Palani) with a direction to issue a show cause notice and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law after receiving the petitioner's reply; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶28

T.S.Venkataraman Vs the Commissioner of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's pension pay order had been properly fixed so that no further refixation was required as ordered in the impugned proceedings. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

No show cause notice was issued before the re-fixation of the pension pay and the passing of the recovery order; on that basis the Court found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 27.03.2019 was set aside and the matter remitted back to the third respondent, who is directed to issue a show cause notice and, after receiving the petitioner's reply, pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (K.RAJASEKAR, J.) by T.S.Venkataraman against the order dated 27.03.2019 in Proc. No. Na.Ka.No.1151/2018/A issued by the Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Palani (third respondent), whereby his pension pay was revised and recovery ordered. The Court held that it was a strong case that no show cause notice had been issued before the re-fixation of pension pay and the passing of the recovery order, set aside the impugned order dated 27.03.2019, and remitted the matter to the third respondent with a direction to issue a show cause notice and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law after receiving the petitioner's reply. The writ petition stood disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP(MD) Nos.7786, 16236 and 7787 of 2019) were closed. No precedent was cited or relied upon.

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.9997 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.9997 of 2019 and WMP(MD) Nos.7786, 16236 and 7787 of 2019

¶7

T.S.Venkataraman .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Commissioner of Treasuries & Accounts, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶10

The Regional Director of Treasuries & Accounts, Madurai Region, Madurai.

¶11

The Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Palani, Dindigul District.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent in proceeding No. Na.Ka.No.1151/2018/A dated 27.03.2019 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Padmavathy for M/s.R.Prem Narayanan For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.(MD).No.9997 of 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the recovery order dated 27.03.2019 passed by the respondents.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pension

¶21

pay order had been properly fixed and there was no need for any further refixation as ordered in the impugned proceedings. It was further submitted that the impugned order was passed without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner for the revision of pension, which is arbitrary and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶22

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that on perusal of the records, it appears that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before revising the pension pay. Therefore, the matter shall be remitted back to the third respondent, who will provide an opportunity to the petitioner and based on his reply, further orders regarding the pension fixation will be considered.

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.(MD).No.9997 of 2019

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

It is a strong case made by the petitioner that no show cause notice was issued before the re-fixation of pension pay and the passing of the recovery order. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.03.2019 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent. Further, the third respondent is directed to issue a show cause notice and after receiving the petitioner’s reply, pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶28

With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

10.06.2025

¶30

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No PKN

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.(MD).No.9997 of 2019

¶34

¶35