Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4643
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
R.N. Sankaran
Versus
State Bank of India, rep by its Chief Manager & Another
W.P. No. 10469 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided on : 19-11-2012
For the Petitioner:Ms. R. Kamatchi Sundaresan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:C.K. Chandrasekar, Advocate.
Excess payments can be recovered if made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation, and the recipient has no vested right to retain the excess amount paid.
Headnote:
Recovery - Pension - [Writ Petition, Recovery, Pension] - [Supreme Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana Vs. Israil Khan and others (2010) 1 SCC 440, Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (2012 STPL (Web) 437 SC] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the recovery of excess payments from employees, emphasizing that recovery is refused only where the excess payment is made by applying a wrong method or principle for calculating the pay/allowance, or on a particular interpretation of the applicable rules which is subsequently found to be erroneous. The court also highlighted that excess payment of public money can be recovered due to wrong/irregular pay fixation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired government servant, sought to prevent the recovery of excess pension payments made to him and requested a refund of the amount already recovered. The respondent bank had started deducting a sum from his pension without prior intimation, claiming it was an excess payment that needed to be recovered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had received an excess amount due to a mistake in calculation and that the recovery of the excess payment was justified. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner had no vested right to retain the excess amount paid due to wrong calculation made inadvertently.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to retain the excess pension amount paid to him and whether the recovery of the excess payment was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that excess payments can be recovered if made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation, as established in the Supreme Court judgments in Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana Vs. Israil Khan and others and Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court held that the petitioner had no vested right to retain the excess amount paid due to wrong calculation made inadvertently.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to forbear the respondents from effecting any recovery from the pension payable to the petitioner in the savings bank account maintained in the second respondent bank and to direct the respondents to refund the amount already recovered from June, 2011 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
2. When the writ petition came up on 18.04.2012, this court ordered notice of motion and had granted an interim injunction for a limited period. The interim order was extended from time to time. The respondents on notice has filed a counter affidavit, dated 16.7.2012. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, dated 10.8.2012.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as an Audit Officer in the office of the Accountant General, Chennai. Subsequently, he joined the Indian Institute of Technology as an Assistant Registrar on 03.11.1988. After his retirement from the IIT, he was given pension. He had commuted the entire pension and other benefits on 3.7.1989. After completion of 15 years, with effect from 3.7.2004, the commuted pension was restored. He had opened his pension pay account in the second respondent bank. The pay and allowance was revised by the Government of India with effect from 1.1.2006. Accordingly, his pension was revised and calculated as Rs.9331/-dearness allowance with effect from 1.9.2009. The arrears of pension was calculated and credited as per the orders of the Government of India. However, a sum of Rs.6252/-was started being deducted from his pension from 29.6.2011. The bank did not give any intimation. After making several representations and not getting satisfactory explanation, he has filed the present writ petition. Though it was stated that he has been paid excess amount of Rs.98,983/-, he had received an order only on 30.3.2012 from the Pay and Accounts Officer that his revised pension is Rs.6579/- with effect from 1.1.2006. No orders were issued relating to excess payment and that the bank cannot make any recovery.
4. As to how the writ petition is maintainable especially when the petitioner was working as the Central Government servant, the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of a division bench in W.P.No.22460 of 2011, dated 10.11.2011 in V.Mohanasundaram Vs. The Central Administrative Tribunal, rep by its Registrar, Chennai and others. In that case, the Tribunal had refused to exercise the jurisdiction and that view was upheld by the division bench.
5. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner had initially worked as an Audit Officer in the office of the Accountant General, Chennai. Subsequently, he became an Assistant Registrar of the IIT. After his retirement, he was receiving monthly pension disbursing through his savings bank account with the second respondent. The public sector undertakings absorbed pensioners receiving 1/3rd restored commuted portion of pension are eligible for dearness allowance on full pension, whereas the basic should be the actual 1/3rd restored amount only. For the purpose of calculation, the full pension for which dearness allowance payable was taken as a basic pension and the difference between the full pension and restored amount is taken as notional commutation recovery in the software. During the 5th Pay Commission, the full pension of the petitioner was Rs.4128/-, his notional commutation was Rs.2752/- and the 1/3 restored pension was Rs.1376/-. After 6th Pay commission, his full pension was Rs.9331/-, notional commutation was Rs.2752/-and the 1/3rd restored pension was Rs.6579/-. In the case of the petitioner, his notional commutation amount of Rs.2752/-was inadvertently omitted to be recovered due to mistake in calculation and he was paid in excess. The resultant excess payment came to Rs.1,20,999/-which was pointed out during the audit verification by the Auditor General in May, 2011. Therefore, it was decided to recov
