The impermissibility of recovery from retired employees or employees due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, as outlined by the Supreme Court, was a central legal principle established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the letter Na.Ka.384/2008/Tha.A dated 18.12.2009 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to refund the amount of Rs.1,68,378/- illegally recovered from the first petitioner's Death cum Retirement Gratuity and to revise his pension and other terminal benefits accordingly duly permitting to draw arrears of pension and other terminal benefits from 1.8.2006 onwards.)

1. Mr.V.D.Vetri Azhagan, who was appointed as Fitter in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Urban Division, Vellore and joined duty on 13.3.74, was fixed a pay of Rs.160/- in the scale of pay of Rs.160-5-240 for the said post, as per the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules. Thereafter, his services were transferred along with the Melvisharam Water Supply Scheme with effect from 1.10.74 to the administrative control of the Executive Officer, Mel Visharam Town Panchayat, Vellore, the second respondent herein for further operation and maintenance of the water supply scheme. Later on, the Executive Officer, Mel Visharam Town Panchayat, Vellore, the second respondent herein and the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Urban Division, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore, the third respondent herein also sanctioned the annual increments to the first petitioner every year from the date of appointment till the date of his retirement, namely, from 13.3.74 to 31.7.2006 in the post of Fitter. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that when the second respondent fixed the first petitioner's pay at Rs.160/- in the scale of pay of Rs.160-5-240 on 9.3.74, Rs.310/- in the scale of pay of Rs.295-5-315-10-475 on 1.4.78, Rs.670/- plus 5% Personal Pay in the scale of pay of Rs.610-20-730-25-955-30-1075 on 1.10.84 and Rs.1260/- in the scale of pay of Rs.1200-30-1560-40-2040 on 1.6.88, he was transferred and posted in the office of the first respondent herein from 25.5.94, where the first respondent permitted the first petitioner to move to the Special Grade of Pay and fixed his pay at Rs.1500/- in the scale of pay of Rs.1320-30-1560-40-2040 on 1.10.94 and at Rs.4900/- in the scale of pay of Rs.4300-100-6000 on 1.1.96. It is also contained that from the date of the first petitioner's appointment from 13.3.74 till 31.3.2005, various local fund audit parties conducted annual internal audit at the offices of the first and second respondents and after verifying the service records, they also accepted all the service entries including the fixation of pay, revision of pay and annual increments etc., sanctioned to the first petitioner and at no point of time, the statutory audit parties had pointed out any remarks about the wrong fixation of pay and the sanction of annual increments. While so, during the audit conducted in the year 2005, the local fund audit party had pointed out some illegal and imaginary audit remarks. But the same were not communicated to the first petitioner to offer his reply. Without giving any reasonable opportunity to the first petitioner, the Executive Officer, Gandhi Nagar Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Vellore, the first respondent herein issued an order to recover a sum of Rs.59,078/- at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from the pay of the first petitioner for the month of July, 2005 towards excess payment of pay and allowances and 5% personal pay vide the proceedings dated 15.7.2005 and they have also recovered a sum of Rs.6500/- out of Rs.59,078/- from the first petitioner's salary from July, 2005 to July, 2006. Thereafter, the first petitioner was permitted to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.7.2006.

2. In the meanwhile, the first respondent also submitted a proposal for sanction of pension, D.C.R.G.etc., to the fourth respondent, whereas the Director of Local Fund Audit, Chenna