Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
V. Valaguruvan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, Environment & Forest Department, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 9892 of 2012
Decided on : 30-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Nambi Arooran, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Thanga Vadhana Balakrishnan, P.S. Sivashanmuga Sundaram, Special Government Pleader.
The judgment establishes the principle that recovery of excess payments from retired employees or those due to retire within one year, without proper notice or hearing, may be iniquitous and arbitrary, and therefore impermissible in law.
Headnote:
Certiorarified Mandamus - Recovery of Excess Payment - Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules - Ranger Training Course - Selection Grade - Special Grade - Recovery of Pay - Right of State as Employer to Recover Excess Amount Paid - Inequity and Arbitrariness in Recovery - Recovery from Retired Employees - Writ Petition Allowed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Deputy Conservator of Forest, sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order for recovery of Rs.1,10,785/- from his retirement benefits, which was allegedly paid in excess to him between 03.11.1984 and 19.10.2006. The petitioner contended that the recovery was ordered on the date of his retirement without notice or hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery was ordered on the petitioner's retirement date without notice or hearing, and that the recovery would cause undue hardship to the petitioner. The court held that the recovery was iniquitous and arbitrary, and therefore set aside the impugned orders, directing the respondents to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the recovery of excess payment from the petitioner's retirement benefits, the absence of notice and hearing before the recovery order, and the application of the principles of equity and arbitrariness in the recovery process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the right of the State as an employer to recover excess amounts paid to employees, emphasizing the need to balance the suffering of the employees with the right of the employer. The court also considered the inequity and arbitrariness in the recovery process, especially when applied to retired employees or those due to retire within one year of the recovery order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner.
(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Ref.No.B2/76477/2007 dated 15.07.2010 confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Roc.No.7310/06/g dated 31.12.2009 and quash the same and consequentially to direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.1,10,785/- recovered from the DCRG to the petitioner forthwith.)
1. This writ petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Ref.No.B2/76477/2007 dated 15.07.2010 confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Roc.No.7310/06/g dated 31.12.2009 and quash the same and consequentially to direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.1,10,785/- recovered from the DCRG to the petitioner forthwith.
2. The writ petitioner, V.Valaguruvan, retired as Deputy Conservator of Forest on superannuation on 31.12.2007 as Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry at Villupuram. He was initially, appointed as Junior Assistant on 07.07.1971 in Tamil Nadu Forest Department. His services were governed by the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service. Since he was also eligible for appointment as Ranger, he was appointed as Ranger on 01.11.1974. He underwent Ranger Training Course at Forest Ranger Training College, Coimbatore from 01.11.1974 to 31.10.1976. He joined duty as Forest Ranger on 03.11.1976. He service, as Ranger were regularized with effect from 03.11.1976. The Conservator of Forest, Vellore Circle in proceedings Roc.No.11005/01 dated 20.10.2003, re-fixed his scale of pay taking into account the service rendered by him as Trainee in the cadre of Ranger from 01.11.1974. He was awarded selection grade on completion of 10 years with effect from 01.11.1974 and special grade with effect from 03.11.1986.
3. The third respondent, the Conservator of Forests, Villupuram Circle by proceedings dated 31.12.2007 revised the scale of pay stating that an objection had been made in the audit by the Principal Accountant General by order dated 07.12.2007, stating that the grant of fixation of pay in the cadre of Ranger and selection grade and special grade awarded by the Conservator of Forest, Vellore Circle on 20.10.2003 was not in order. The third respondent ordered recovery of Rs.1,10,785/- being alleged excess of pay made to the petitioner between 03.11.1984 and 19.10.2006. This is the order impugned before this Court.
4. It was stated that the petitioner was not issued with any notice. He was also not heard. The order was passed on the date of retirement on superannuation on 31.12.2007. Since, the entire pensionery benefits would be withheld, the petitioner received the retirement benefits with deduction of a sum of Rs.1,10,785/- under protest. He then filed an appeal before the second respondent, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chennai, on 17.12.2007. The second respondent rejected the appeal by proceedings dated 15.07.2010. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court by way of this Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of second respondent dated 15.07.2010, confirming the order of the third respondent dated 31.12.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.1,10,785/- recovered through DCRG from the petitioner.
5. The third respondent had filed a counter also on behalf of the first and second respondents. It was stated that the petitioner was initially selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and appointed as Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service with effect from 07.07.1971. He joined the Southern Forestry Rangers College, Coimbatore, on 01.11.1974 and joined as F
