##PAGE1##

WP No. 11381 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

WP No. 11381 of 2026 K.Nagaraju

S/o.R.Krishnan ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Director, Directorate of Employment and Training,

Chennai.

2. The Deputy Director, District Employment and Carer Guidance Centre,

Coimbatore-29.

3. The Accountant General, O/o.The Accountant General (A and E) Tamil Nadu,

361, Anna Salai, Chennai-018.

..Respondent(s)

This writ petition filed under Article 12-retirement Benefit cum Pension to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent in bray;Kiw Miz vz;/m/1/ 307/ 2025 dated 24.09.2025 and quash the same as illegal and unlawful consequently direct the respondents to pay monthly pension to the petitioner as determined by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings in Ref. No.A1/ 307/ 2025 dated 15.05.2025 and to refund the deductions made from the petitioner’s death cum retirement gratuity more particularly within a time frame as may be

stipulated by this Honble court.

__________

Page1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2026 03:09:47 pm )

WP No. 11381 of 2026

For Petitioner(s): Mr. J.Pooventherarajan

For Respondent(s): Mr. R.V.Dinesh Rajkumar, AGP, for R1 & R2

Mr. A.N.R.Jayaprathap, StandingCounsel, for R3

ORDER

The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order of

the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/ 307/ 2025 dated 24.09.2025 and for consequential direction to pay pension as originally fixed and to refund the

amount recovered from the petitioner’s DCRG.

2. The petitioner, after rendering 40 years of unblemished service, retired

on 31.05.2025 as Employment Officer. At the time of retirement, his pay was fixed at Rs.51,000(level 18) and pension was sanctioned accordingly. Subsequently, the second respondent re-fixed the pay at Rs.49,500/- by reducing one increment and ordered recovery, pursuant to which a sum of Rs.2,04,562/- was deducted from the petitioner’s DCRG. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.09.2025. However,

without proper consideration, the impugned re-fixation order has been issued.

__________

Page2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2026 03:09:47 pm )

WP No. 11381 of 2026

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned

order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or affording an

opportunity of hearing, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents would submit that after retirement, the pension proposal was forwarded to the Accountant General, where it was found that excess payment had been made and therefore recovery was effected. However, he would fairly

submit that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner.

5. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made on

either side and perused the materials on record.

6. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing the

impuged order. It is a settled proposition of law that before effecting any recovery, especially after retirement, the principles of natural justice require issuance of a prior show cause notice and affording an opportunity to the employee. In the absence of such notice, the order of recovery cannot be

sustained. On this ground also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

__________

Page3 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2026 03:09:47 pm )

WP No. 11381 of 2026

7. Further, the recovery that is now sought to be effected is contrary to the

dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab

and others /vs/ RafiQ Masih reported in 2015(4) SCC 334.

8. Considering the fact that the impugned order has been passed without

issuing notice to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without going into the merits