The main legal point established in the judgment is that reducing pension and ordering recovery without following principles of natural justice is illegal and arbitrary.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from recovering any amount from the retirement benefit of the petitioner and consequentially to direct the fourth and fifth respondents to repay the recovered amount from the retirement benefit of the petitioner within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.)

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from recovering any amount from the retirement benefits of the petitioner and for a consequential direction to Respondents No.4 and 5 to repay the recovered amount from the retirement benefit of the petitioner in the interests of justice.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. It appears that this writ petition was listed ''for admission'' first time on 09.09.2016. On that day, one Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate, took notice for the respondents and it was adjourned for four weeks for filing counter. Thereafter, this case was not listed till 03.07.2023. On 17.07.2023, on behalf of Respondents No.2 and 3, a counter affidavit has been filed along with typed set of papers.

4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Vaccinator (under National Small Pox Eradication Programme) on 27.03.1963 and thereafter, he was promoted as Health Inspector at District Health Office, Salem on 20th April, 1970. In the cadre of Health Inspector, he was given Selection Grade and Special Grade on 20th April, 1980 and 20th April, 1990 respectively. On account of Selection Grade and Special Grade, his scale of pay was fixed at Rs.5900-200-9900. Subsequently, he was promoted as Block Health Supervisor on 12.09.1996, but his scale of pay even in the promoted category remained as Rs.5900-200-9900, in view of the fact that he was given more pay in the post of Health Inspector on account of the Selection Grade and Special Grade than the pay applicable to the post of Block Health Supervisor. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st January, 2001. When the petitioner went to the office of the Respondent No.4, to receive Medical Insurance Card, he was informed by the Respondent No.4 that his pension amount would be decreased and to that effect, an order will be communicated. But no such order was communicated to the petitioner. However, in the month of June, 2016, the petitioner''s pension amount was decreased without any information. The petitioner sent a representation to the Respondent No.5 on 11.07.2016 requesting him not to decrease his pension, that too, without any order from the Respondent No.3 and without issuing any notice. But subsequently, in respect of July month also, his pension amount was decreased. Under those circumstances, he filed an application under Right to Information Act, seeking for any reason to deduct the pension amount of the petitioner. In response thereto, the Respondent No.5, vide his proceedings, has informed the petitioner that the petitioner is being given wrong pension and the petitioner did not produce any documents, the amount of pension was decreased and recovery of the petitioner''s Dearness Allowance at the rate of 125% was ordered. Aggrieved with the action of the respondents in decreasing the pension amount and ordering for recovery, the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition.

5. In fact, filing of counter affidavit by Respondents No.2 and 3 on 17.07.2023 is against the Madras High Court Writ Rules. As per Rule 24(2), from the date of receipt of notice, the respondents have to file counter affidavit within 8 weeks. But in the present case, the respondents filed counter affidavit nearly after seven years, which is not permissible under the relevant Rules. Moreover, the respondents did not file any application s