IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

1. Tmt.Mohamedunnisa Begum,

W/o.R.Yehasanullah (Late),

No. 24/120, Bilai Rabi Street,

Labbaikudikkadu -621 108,

Kunnam Taluk,

Perambalur District ,

Perambalur Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Director of Elementary

Education,

College Road, Chennai 6.

2.The District Elementary Educational

Officer,

Perambalur District, Perambalur 3.The Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Kunnam and Post,

Perambalur District

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of a

Certiorari, to call for records pertaining to the orders of the 3rd respondent in Na. Ka. No. 680/2019/A dated 15.10.2019 relating to recovery from the family

pension (PPO No. F455093) of the petitioner and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Kamadevan For Respondent(s): Ms.A.Bakkiyalakshmi, Govt Advocate, for R1 & 2

ORDER

This writ petition is filed, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records pertaining to the orders of the 3rd respondent in Na. Ka. No. 680/2019/A dated 15.10.2019 relating to recovery from the family pension (PPO No. F455093) of the petitioner and quash the same.

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

3.The case of the petitioner in brief, is that her husband was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 20.12.1957 in Elementary School and after working for 32 years, had retired from service on 30.06.1989; and that he had deceased on 22.06.2010.

4.It is further case of the petitioner that her husband on attaining the age of superannuation had retired from service; that he was granted pensionary benefits; that after his demise on 22.06.2010, she being the family member, was granted family pension as per the applicable Rules and Regulations; and that she is being paid the family pension since, July, 2010.

5. The petitioner contended that all of a sudden, the third respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 15.10.2019, claiming that the pension of her husband was wrongly fixed, resulting in excess payment of Rs.4,34,556/-; that the said amount of excess pension paid is to be recovered in 68 installments at Rs.6373/- each and last one installment at Rs.1192/-, in all aggregating to Rs.4,34,556/-; and that as per calculation sheet attached to the said proceedings, the excess payment of pension was alleged to have been made during the period of first April, 1999 onwards.

6.The petitioner further contended that the respondents have fixed the pension during the life time of her husband and paid the pension to her husband till his demise in the month of June 2010 and thereafter, have been paying family pension to her since, July 2010, cannot be allowed to claim that there has been excess payment of pension to her husband during his life time and the family pension to her thereafter. Thus, it is contended that the impugned proceedings issued seeking recovery of the alleged excess payment, is wholly illegal and arbitrary.

7.Per contra, the respondents by counter affidavit, contended that the petitioner’s husband though initially was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher, was subsequently posted as Elementary School Headmaster and promoted to the post of Middle School Headmaster on 16.12.1980; that thereafter, he was posted as Upper Middle School Headmaster on 01.06.1988; and that while working as Middle School Head Master, retired from service on

30.06.1989 on attaining the age of superannuation.

8.By the counter affidavit, the respondents further contended that net qualifying service of the deceased employee for pension was 25 years 3 months and 9 days and taking into consideration the aforesaid eligible qualifying service, pension was fixed and revised from time to time.

9. By the counter affidavit, it is further contended that the deceased employee i.e., the petitioner’s husband while claiming the benefit of G.O.