The main legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of the recovery of excess pension from a retired government employee, based on the principles outlined in the State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records made in the impugned order of the second respondent in dated 13.01.2017 in a proceeding Na.Ka.No.84/2017/A and QUASH; consequently direct the respondents to refund the recovered pension as excess payment to the petitioner.)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. However, even on the earlier hearing date, there was no appearance. 1/7

2. Writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking records relating to an order of the second respondent, the Sub Treasury Officer, Kunnam in Perambalur District dated 13.01.2017 in proceedings Na.Ka.No.84/2017/A and quash the same and direct the respondents to refund the recovered pension as excess pension to the petitioner.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the petitioner had retired as Village Administrative Officer on 31.01.2004. He was drawing pension from the second respondent office. He had been initially appointed as Village Administrative Officer on 12.03.1984 at Vankudi Village, Udayarpalayam, Perambalur District. It had been stated that the excess payment of Rs.89,129/- had been made to the petitioner and an order of recovery dated 13.01.2017 vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.84/2017/A in 19 equal instalments had been isued. Questioning that particular order, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it had been stated that the pay fixing authority had failed to ensure the fixation of the pay in accordance with the directions of the Government and that the pension amount fixed for the petitioner was higher than the first level of the promoted post of Revenue Assistant. It had been stated that the petitioner had received amount of Rs.4,500/- as ineligible pension and therefore, the excess amount had to be recovered from the petitioner in instalments. It had also been stated that notice was served to the petitioner and an explanation was also given and only thereafter, the respondents had passed the order dated 13.01.2017. In view of these facts, it is stated that the writ petition should be dismissed.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader also produced as documents, the fact that the audit objection was made in the year 2016 itself. It had been stated that the audit objection was for a total period of three years and eight months, wherein the petitioner had overdrawn pension. This Court had granted interim stay at the time of admission and the respondents have therefore filed W.M.P.No.37981 of 2017 to vacate the stay.

6. It had been contended that after the sixth central pay commission, the Government of Tamil Nadu, had constituted a commission to examine the implementation of the recommendation of sixth pay central commission. Accordingly, G.O.(Ms).No.235 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 01.06.2009 had been passed. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2004 as Village Administrative Officer. With respect to G.O.(Ms).No.235, the selection grade for the post of Village Administrative Officer is Rs.9300 – 34800 + GP 4200. The ordinary grade is Rs.5200-20200 + GP 2400. The next category feeder post of Revenue Inspector is Rs.5200 – 20200 + GP 2800.

7. It had however been further stated that the petitioner had been receiving the Selection Grade pay, which was more than the promoted post of Revenue Assistant. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner had been receiving ineligible pension. In view of these facts, the only point arises for consideration is recovery of excess pension. In the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., reported in (2005) 4 SCC 334, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the is