Recovery of excess payments from employees after their retirement is impermissible in law, provided the excess payment was not obtained through misrepresentation or fraud by the employee.

Prayer:

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of impugned order of the 4th respondent in his proceeding in Na.Ka.No.B1/E- 8270700/ 2024 Ta.Na.Ka.U. Order No./317/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.A.Ilayaperumal

For Respondent(s) : Mr.P.Balathandayutham,

Special Government Pleader for R1, 3 & 4

Mr.T.Ravikumar,

Standing Counsel Takes for R2

ORDER

This writ petition is filed to call for the records of impugned order of the 4th respondent in his proceeding in Na.Ka.No.B1/E- 8270700/ 2024 Ta.Na.Ka.U. Order No./317/2024 dated 12.11.2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable in the year 1984 and retired on 31.05.2024 as Sub-Inspector of Police. Thereafter, the second respondent has fixed his monthly pension at the rate of Rs.62,700/-. Subsequent to the retirement, the fourth respondent has passed the impugned order of recovery, seeking to recover an amount of Rs.1,61,813/- with regard to the excess payment said to have been made to the petitioner. Challenging the said recovery order, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has no grievance in fixing the pension at the rate of Rs.62,700/-, however the recovery of Rs.1,61,813/- against the petitioner is not sustainable on the simple ground that the petitioner has not obtained a pension by way of suppression or misrepresentation. The respondents on their own paid the amount, which cannot be recovered after the retirement and that too without providing any opportunity to the petitioner.

4. To substantiate the claim, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, reported in [(2015) 4 SCC 344].

5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that admittedly, the petitioner's pension is fixed at the rate of Rs.62,700/- instead, he received a sum of Rs.64,400/- which is not sustainable and the same has to be recovered from the petitioner. Apart from that, the judgment relied by the petitioner is only applicable to Group C and D employee, but in the case on hand, the petitioner is a Group B employee. Hence, the same is not applicable to the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order dated 12.11.2024 was passed subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner, and it is further admitted that the amount alleged to have been paid in excess. Though the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents would strongly object to this writ petition, it is not their case that the excess payment was made due to the misrepresentation by the petitioner.

8. In such view of the submission, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts of this case is squarely covered by the Judgment of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih