BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
P. Radhakrishnan, Thanjavur – Appellant
Versus
The State Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented through its Secretary, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD) No. 3954 of 2020 & W.M.P(MD) Nos. 3348, 3350, 3352 & 8676 of 2020
Decided On : 04-09-2023
Writ Petition - Pension Regulation - Government Letter No.39839/Police V / 07-3, dated 24.08.2007, and Letter M.S.No.83, dated 06.02.2019 - The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to repay the recovered sum with interest, refix the petitioner's pension, and revise the petitioner's pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired police officer, filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned orders related to the regulation of his pension and recovery of a sum from his gratuity without notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were based on a government letter dated 24.08.2007, which was subsequently cancelled by a letter dated 06.02.2019. The court held that the revision of pay, based on the cancelled letter, was non-est in the eye of law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the impugned orders, the cancellation of the government letter, and the recovery of the sum from the petitioner's gratuity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the cancellation of the government letter dated 24.08.2007 and the admission by the respondents that the impugned orders were based on the cancelled letter. The court concluded that the impugned orders were quashed and directed the respondents to repay the recovered sum with interest and refix the petitioner's pension.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the impugned orders, directed the repayment of the recovered sum with interest, and instructed the refixing and revision of the petitioner's pension.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed in D.O.No.1184/2018 in C.No.S2/41661/2017, dated 29.10.2018 and subsequent order of regulation of pay and order of recovery in C.No.D2/ACR-188/2018, dated 16.09.2019 and quash the same, further direct the respondents to repay the recovered sum of Rs.1,58,715/- (One Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifteen Only) with 18% interest and further refix the petitioner''s pension with increment notionally from 01.10.2018 as Rs.54,100/- and revise the petitioner''s pension.)
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned orders passed in D.O.No.1184/2018 in C.No.S2/41661/2017, dated 29.10.2018 and subsequent order of regulation of pay and order of recovery in C.No.D2/ACR-188/2018, dated 16.09.2019 passed by the fourth respondent and further direct the respondents to repay the recovered sum of Rs.1,58,715/- (One Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifteen Only) with 18% interest and further refix the petitioner''s pension with increment notionally from 01.10.2018 as Rs.54,100/- and revise the petitioner''s pension.
2. Heard Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, 6 & 7 and Ms.S.Mahalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 17.11.1988 with a basic pay of Rs.505/-. Later he was promoted as Grade I Police Constable, Head Constable and Special Sub-Inspector of Police on 28.09.1999, 28.10.2004 and 01.12.2013 respectively. The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2019. The last drawn pay shown in his pension proposal was Rs.52,500/-. After three months from the petitioner''s retirement, on 16.09.2019, a sum of Rs.1,58,715/- was recovered from the petitioner''s gratuity without notice. The petitioner made a representation before the fourth respondent to pay his increment as on 01.10.2018, tuning Rs.54,100/-. However, the impugned regulation/revision of pay dated 29.10.2018 and an order of recovery, dated 16.09.2019 was passed by the fourth respondent.
4. The impugned orders, dated 29.10.2018 and 16.09.2019 are based on a Government Letter in No.39839/Police V / 07-3, dated 24.08.2007, by which, clarification was given by the Department of Home (Police V), Secretariat, Chennai – 9 and the same reads as follows:-
“I am directed to refer to your letter cited wherein it has been requested to clarify as to whether the Police Personnel who are upgraded as Grade I Police Constable may be permitted to exercise their option to fix their pay till the date of accrual of the next increment under FR 22(1) a(i) in the lower rank or whether their pay may be fixed under relevant rules from the date of their actual date of upgradation. In this connection, I am directed to state that Grade II Police Constables who have completed 10 years of service as on 20.10.2004 are deemed to have been upgraded and not promoted with reference to any panel. Therefore, their pay shall be fixed under FR 22-B straightaway on that date itself without getting any option.”
5. The said Government Letter, dated 24.08.2007 has been cancelled on 06.02.2019 by the first respondent vide Letter M.S.No.83, dated 06.02.2019 and the relevant portion of which is extracted as follows:-
“2.I am to state that in your letters cited, it has been stated that the police personnel who were appointed as Grade II Police Constables in the year 1981, 1982, 1984 and 1985 and upgraded as Special Sub Inspector of Police in Thoothukudi have given representations that their Juniors who were appointed as Grade II Police Constables in the year 19
The cancellation of the government letter dated 24.08.2007 rendered the impugned orders non-est in the eye of law, leading to the quashing of the orders and the direction for repayment and pension re....
The cancellation of the government letter and the application of FR 22(1) a(i) and FR 22-B in fixing pay for police personnel were central to the court's decision.
The impugned order of regulation/revision of pay, based on a cancelled government letter, was non-est in the eye of law, and the court directed the respondents to refix the petitioner's pay and revis....
The cancellation of the government letter led to the non-est status of the regulation of pay, influencing the court's decision to quash the impugned orders and direct repayment with interest.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Government Letter dated 24.08.2007, its subsequent cancellation, and the non-est nature of the impugned orders based on t....
Erroneous fixation of pay or pension can be corrected, but recovery after retirement causing hardship is not sustainable without evidence of misrepresentation or written undertakings.
Recovery of excess payment from an employee's pensionary benefits is impermissible if such payments were made more than five years prior to the recovery order or were made without the employee's faul....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.