Unjustified To Recover From Employees Any Excess Payment, In Case Of Inordinate Delay In Initiating The Recovery: Madras High Court
A Single Judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Hon'ble Justice Battu Devanand while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu held that it would be unjustified to recover from employees any excess payment made to them by mistake and where there had been inordinate delay in initiating the recovery. Facts: The...
A Single Judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Hon'ble Justice Battu Devanand while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu held that it would be unjustified to recover from employees any excess payment made to them by mistake and where there had been inordinate delay in initiating the recovery.
Facts:
The Original Petition (W.P.No.32280/2017) was filed by V. Radhakrishnan. The petitioner served as a Lecturer Selection Grade until his retirement on 30.09.1988. His pension was initially Rs.1,046/- per month and later revised to Rs.57,241/- per month. He received revised pension until February 2017. The second respondent (Assistant Treasury Officer, Pollachi), through an order dated 01.03.2017, claimed that an excess payment of Rs.11,54,844/- has been made and initiated recovery. His pension was reduced to Rs.27,252/- per month from March 2017.
The petitioner contended that due to his re-designation as lecturer selection grade, the 3 year requirement was not applicable and thus recovery cannot be made. Against this the respondent contended the recovery to be justified stating non-completion of three years in the re-designated post.
The petitioner passed away on 16.02.2019. In 2020 the petitioner's wife filed writ petition seeking family pension based on her husband's pension.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the order of the respondent for recovery violated the principles of natural justice as notice was not issued to petitioner to provid him opportunity to put forth his case against the allegation of the respondents and that the petitioner had no role in fixing the revised pension.
The court relied on the case of State of Punjab & Ors v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) wherein the Supreme Court set aside the proceedings of recovery observing that the recovery would be impermissible in law from employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery or when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
The court also relied on the case of Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala & others wherein the Supreme Court of India held the recovery to be unjustified observing that the excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting the Kerala Service Rules and not on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant.
The Court set aside the order for recovery for being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and directed the respondents to pay family pension to the wife of the petitioner on the pension amount received by petitioner, from the date of his death.
With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition was allowed.
Case No.- W.P.Nos. 32280 of 2017 and 14243 of 2020
Case Name- V. Radhakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
Counsel for Petitioner- Mr. R. Subramanian
Counsel for Respondent- Mrs. C. Sangamithirai