The court emphasized that recovery from a retired employee for excess payment without prior notice is impermissible under established legal principles.

ORDER :

R.N.MANJULA, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed under a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in Lr.No.11078/PR3/1994 dated 16.07.2019, quash the same and direct the respondents to repay a sum of Rs. 4,05,298/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Five Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Eight only) with consequential interest at the rate of 12%, based on the petitioner's representation.

2.Heard, Mr.V.K.Elango, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned standing counsel for respondents and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 05.04.1989 and reappointed as a Typist on 09.11.1989 at the respondent university. He retired from service on 30.06.2017 upon attaining the age of superannuation. On 11.05.2018, the petitioner's grade pay was reduced, and consequently, a sum of Rs. 1,86,195/- was recovered from the terminal benefits payable to him, citing it as an excess payment. An order to that effect was passed by the 2nd respondent on 11.05.2018 without giving any prior notice to the petitioner.Despite the petitioner has made several representations to the respondents stating that the deduction was illegal, the amount has not been refunded to him so far. Additionally, the petitioner was issued a recovery order on 16.07.2019, stating that his pay had been wrongly fixed. The petitioner apprehends that, due to the above deduction, the respondents might also revise the fixation of his pension and reduce the same.

4. Mr.V.K.Elango, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above deduction cannot be made in view of the well-settled principles of law on this point, as established in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others [reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334], popularly known as the 'White Washer Case'. In fact, based on the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Government Order has also been issued in G.O.Ms.No.286, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 28.08.2018. According to the said Government Order, wherever any excess payments are identified, appropriate action should be taken after following the prescribed procedure, and the person responsible for such excess payment should be held liable.

5. Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned standing counsel for respondents submitted that the petitioner was erroneously fixed with a higher grade pay, which resulted in an excess payment of Rs.1,86,195/-. Any loss to the government cannot be permitted, and hence, the excess pay and allowances drawn by the petitioner are liable to be recovered. In this regard, necessary procedures have already been issued to the petitioner, and his pension has been revised and re-fixed accordingly. In accordance with the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.313, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 25.10.2017, if a retiring government servant does not clear any of the government dues and such dues are ascertainable, the department is bound to take an equivalent cash deposit from him/her or recover an amount equal to the dues from the gratuity payable to him/her. What was done by the respondents are in accordance with Rule 17 of the TAMIL NADU PENSION RULES , 1978.

DISCUSSION

6. As per the order dated 16.07.2019 issued by the respondents, it was stated that the petitioner’s pay had been wrongly fixed, leading to a revision of his pay, which resulted in the recovery of an excess amount of Rs.1,86,195/-. It was further submitted that the recovery was carried out in accordance with the law from the gratuity amount payable to the petitione