Recovery of excess amount from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year from the order of recovery is impermissible, but this principle may not be applicable to Class I Officers.

HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.

The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 24.8.2017 made in W.P.No.6114 of 2015 by a learned Single Judge.

2. In the said Writ Petition, the order of recovery issued by the second respondent in Proceedings dated 4.9.2013 and the consequential proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.3.2014 and 14.7.2014 were under challenge. The said Writ Petition was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 24.8.2017. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the respondents therein.

3. Heard the submissions made on either side. We have also perused the materials available on record carefully.

4. The case of the writ petitioner/1st respondent is that he was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 08.03.1982 and thereafter, promoted to the level of Tahsildar with effect from 1.9.2007 and further promoted to the post of Deputy Collector by way of transfer of service with effect from 22.9.2011 and retired from service on 30.6.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. While so, revision of pay as well as the pensionary benefits were calculated in accordance with the Government Orders to the writ petitioner. It is the department which carried out the revision of pay and there was no misrepresentation on his part in relation to the re-fixation and revision of pay. Thus, the pay and pension fixed and disbursed to the writ petitioner was in accordance with the Government Orders in force at the relevant point of time. However, it appears that based on an audit objection, an order of recovery was issued to the writ petitioner after his retirement, even without giving any show cause notice, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and further no recovery can be imposed after the retirement of an employee. The same was objected to by the respondents therein. While so, the learned Single Judge in his order dated 24.8.2017 has held thus :

''6. This Court is of the opinion that the erroneous fixation can be corrected at any point of time if an objection is raised by the audit officers. Thus, the error, if any, in re-fixation of pay shall be corrected by the competent authorities, but the recovery imposed on the writ petitioner cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition stands partly allowed in respect of the recovery imposed and the amount recovered from the writ petitioner is directed to be reimbursed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in respect of the re-fixation, it is left open to the competent authorities to correct the same in accordance with the rules and as per the Government Orders in force.''

Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the respondents therein.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the writ petitioner is a Grade-I Officer and therefore, he was aware of the wrong fixation and the fixation done in this regard requires to be corrected for all future purposes. Otherwise, it will be loss of money to the State exchequer. But the learned Single Judge has held that the erroneous fixation can be corrected at any point of time if an objection is raised by the audit officers. Thus, the error, if any, in re-fixation of pay shall be corrected by the competent authorities, but the recovery imposed on the writ petitioner cannot be sustained. Therefore, the said order has to be set aside.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader laying emphasis on White Washer's case (State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc in CA. No. 11527/2014 (arising out of SLP) No. 11684./2012) submitted that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner is a Retired Class I Officer, neither a Group 'C' or Group 'D' employee. The foremost aspect with regard to the hardship faced by the employees in the case of ordering to recover excess payment is that it will affect their living condition, due to the fact that the amount of salary or