O R D E R

The order of recovery dated 21.12.2015 passed by the fourth respondent and the consequential order dated 30.12.2015, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Associate Lecturer in Government Arts College, Coimbatore during the year 1964-1965 and his services were regularised with effect from 20.06.1975. The petitioner was placed under senior scale in the post of Lecturer on and from 14.07.1988 and the selection grade was awarded to him in proceedings dated 19.11.1996. Accordingly, the scale of pay as applicable to the writ petitioner was fixed and he was permitted to draw the arrears of pay from 14.07.1988. The petitioner opted for voluntary retirement from service on 07.11.1990 and he was relieved from service. The petitioner has been drawing monthly pension from 08.11.1990 onwards. To his shock and surprise, the fourth respondent issued a notice that an excess amount of pension has been paid to him from the year 2007 onwards. Subsequently, another proceedings dated 30.12.2015 was issued by the fourth respondent stating that an amount of Rs.13,90,512/- was paid in excess to the writ petitioner and therefore, the petitioner shall deposit the said excess amount in one lump sum. In view of the recovery of huge amount, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the third respondent made a submission that excess pension was paid to the writ petitioner on account of erroneous revision of pension by the Competent Authorities of the Government Department. Therefore, the third respondent-Principal Accountant General cannot be held responsible.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 4, objected the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that the excess pension was paid due to wrong fixation and therefore, the same is directed to be recovered from the petitioner.

5. An excess pension was paid on 01.01.2007 on account of wrong fixation and revision of pension. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the order passed and consequently the writ petition is to be rejected.

6. The revision of pension was granted at the instance of the Government Department and its establishment. There is no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the writ petitioner for revision of pay and consequential pension.

7. In the present case, the writ petitioner was allowed to retire from service under Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 07.11.1990. The impugned recovery order has been passed in the year 2015 stating that an excess amount of pension was paid with effect from 01.01.2007 onwards. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for any such erroneous fixation made at the end of the Department and further he is not responsible for any misrepresentation or otherwise. But the order impugned was passed when the petitioner was aged about 81 years. Thus in the event of recoverying the excess amount, the same would result in extreme hardship to the ageold pensioner and further, he has not committed any fraud in the matter of revision of scale of pay refixed or revision of scale of pay or pension.

8. In this regard, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.286, Finance (Pension) Department dated 28.08.2018. The said Government Order was issued pursuant to the judgment of the Surpeme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., [decided on 18.12.2014 in C.A.No.11527 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11684 of 2012]. As per the principles laid down in the case, cited supra, the recovery from the retired employees are to be avoided as such recovery would cause hardship to the pensioners. The Government, therefore, directed that the ratio of responsibility in case of over payments/irregular payments. Paragraph 8 (1) of the Government Order stipulates that when over payment occurs in such cases, where the excess payments on acccount of wrong pay fixation, grant of scale w