Pension disbursing authorities cannot recover excess payments made due to their own administrative error by direct deduction from pension without following due process of law, such as issuing notice or filing a civil suit, especially when no misrepresentation was made by the pensioner.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent made in Na. Ka. En. 489/ A2/ 2020 dated on 20.11.2020 and quash the same and also direct the 1st respondent to not deduct the amount from his pension (PPO No. R0615051 DOR 30.11.2016)

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while working as Grade-I Police Constable he had retired from services on 30.11.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation and his pensionary benefits have been settled in full.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents after a lapse of 4 years have issued impugned proceedings calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,80,340/- claiming the said amount as excess payment of Dearness Allowance during 01.11.2018 to 30.09.2020 which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

4. The petitioner further contended that the aforesaid alleged excess payment made by the respondents, is not on account of the misrepresentation by the petitioner for them to claim that the petitioner is liable to make good the aforesaid payment, which, the respondents intended to recover from the monthly pension payable to the petitioner.

5. On behalf of the petitioner, it is also contended that since, the petitioner had retired as Grade-I Constable, the alleged excess payment, even if any, also cannot be recovered by the respondents since the petitioner employment falls under Group – C/ Category - III of employment and applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masi reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334

6. Contending as above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

7. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents is filed.

8. By the counter affidavit, it is contended that the excess payment of Dearness Allowance was made to the petitioner while implementing the recommendations of the 6th and 7th pay commission and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for the enhanced Dearness Allowance which was wrongly paid to him and thus, the respondents sought to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner.

9. By the counter affidavit, the respondents contended that the petitioner who was a pensioner during the period 01.11.2018 to 30.09.2020 was erroneously paid excess Dearness Allowance and the said excess payment was pointed out in the biannual inspection conducted by the Accountant General, Chennai for the year 2020 - 2021 and accordingly, the impugned proceedings has been issued seeking to recover the excess payment from the pension of the petitioner in monthly instalments.

10. The respondents would further contended that the petitioner had clear knowledge of the excess payment being made to him to which he is not entitled and the said amount belonging to the State Exchequer and as such, the petitioner cannot claim that the said amount cannot be recovered from him.

11. Contending as above, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

12. I have taken note of the respectiv