Dismissed¶27

The Commissioner v. S. Aman Beevi

Madras HC2 Jan 2026WA(MD)/377/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family pension excess recovery quashed; recovery from widow of deceased Class-IV Sanitary Supervisor (Madurai Corporation) held impermissible absent misrepresentation, applying State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334; re-fixation order left untouched, only recovery order set aside; writ appeal under Clause XV Letters Patent dismissed, no costs; connected C.M.P.(MD)No.1331 of 2021 closed; decided 02.01.2026 by G.R. Swaminathan and R. Kalaimathi, JJ.; respondent made no appearance.

What did the court decide?

The learned Single Judge did not interfere with the order of re-fixation and set aside only the order of recovery, rightly invoking the principle laid down in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334. ¶22

The Commissioner Vs S. Aman Beevi — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ appeal should be allowed by setting aside the order dated 02.03.2020 passed in W.P.(MD)No.9278 of 2010, which set aside the recovery of excess family pension. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Since the recovery was sought from the wife of a retired Sanitary Supervisor falling under the Class-IV category who was only receiving family pension, and consistent with the Rafiq Masih principle that excess paid to Class-III and Class-IV employees without misrepresentation need not be recovered, there is no ground to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Clause XV, Letters Patent) — Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Division Bench of G.R. Swaminathan and R. Kalaimathi, JJ., judgment by G.R. Swaminathan, J., dated 02.01.2026, dismissing W.A.(MD)No.377 of 2021 filed by the Commissioner, Madurai Corporation against the learned Single Judge's order dated 02.03.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.9278 of 2010, which had set aside the Corporation's order recovering excess family pension paid to the widow (S. Aman Beevi) of a deceased Sanitary Supervisor. The Division Bench noted that the Single Judge had not interfered with the order of re-fixation and had set aside only the recovery order, rightly invoking State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Supreme Court held that excess amounts paid to Class-III and Class-IV employees need not be recovered absent misrepresentation. As the deceased employee was a Class-IV Sanitary Supervisor and the recovery was sought from his wife who was only receiving family pension, the Bench found no ground to interfere; the writ appeal was dismissed with no costs and connected C.M.P.(MD)No.1331 of 2021 was closed.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.377 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.377 of 2021 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)No.1331 of 2021

¶8

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Madurai - 625 016. ... Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

S.Aman Beevi ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow

¶12

the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.9278 of

¶13

2010 dated 02.03.2020 on the file of this Court.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.S.Vinayak, Standing Counsel.

¶15

For Respondent : No appearance

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.A.(MD)No.377 of 2021

¶19

JUDGMENT (By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

¶20

Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant / Madurai Corporation.

¶21

2.The husband of the writ petitioner / respondent herein was working as Sanitary Supervisor in Madurai Corporation. He retired from service. He was receiving pension. He passed away on 23.11.1995. Thereafter, his wife / writ petitioner was receiving family pension. In the year 2010, it was noticed that excess amount was paid towards family pension. To recover the excess amount, the order impugned in the writ petition was passed. Challenging the same, W.P.(MD)No.9278 of 2010 was filed. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 02.03.2020 set aside the recovery order and allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶22

3.We notice that the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the order of re-fixation and the order of recovery alone was set aside. The learned Single Judge rightly invoked the principle laid down in the

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.A.(MD)No.377 of 2021

¶26

decision reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 [State Of Punjab Vs. Rafiq

¶27

Masih (White Washer) ] . The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that if excess amount had been paid to Class-III and Class-IV employees, the same may not be recovered when there is no misrepresentation on their part. In this case, the recovery was sought to be made from the wife of a retired employee who was only receiving family pension. The writ petitioner's husband was also working as Sanitary Supervisor which will fall under Class-IV category. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere. The writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.K.M. J.,)

¶29

02.01.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶30

3/4

¶31

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

¶32

W.A.(MD)No.377 of 2021

¶33

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and R.KALAIMATHI, J.