Recovery of excess payment from a retiree is impermissible if such payments were made more than five years prior to the recovery order or without following due process as prescribed by law.

ORDER

The Writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“ To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order issued by the 5th respondent in proceeding NA.KA. No. SA.F.2(1)/ 7644/ 62/2023 CH.GR.PO 3428/ 2023 dated 18.08.2023 and impugned order passed by the 6th respondent in RC. No.Tr/ Payfix / 65/ 2461/ 2023 T.Z.O. No.900/2023 dated 06.11.2023 and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents 1 to 6(i) to restore the pay of the petitioner and to accordingly refix his last drawn pay, (ii) to refix his pension and pay the arrears of pension and (iii) to repay to the petitioner the recovered amount of Rs.3,17,505/-.”

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Grade II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police Department on 20.02.1986 and further was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector. He had attained superannuation on 28.02.2023 at which point he was working in J9, Thoraipakkam Police Station as Special Sub-inspector of Police.

3. The Petitioner would submit that after retirement in the month of August 2023 and November 2025 he was issued with an impugned order of reduction and re fixation of his pay by proceedings dated 18.08.2023 and 06.11.2023 and further recovery of a sum of Rs.3,17,505 /- was also ordered.

4. The Petitioner would submit that he was no way responsible for the excess payment for the period of 01.07.2012 to 28.02.2023. Therefore aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents. 6. The issue of recovery was subject matter of the Judgement of the State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the recovery cannot be done without issuing a show cause notice.

7. That apart, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down five contingencies where recovery by the employers was impermissible in law. One of which was recovering excess payment made 5 years before the order of recovery was issued.

8. In the judgement of this Court in W.P.No.6401 of 2025, this Court had directed refund of the money already recovered within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order with interest at 6% p.a.

9. In the instant case also the impugned order directs that the sum of Rs.3,17,505/- should be recovered from the petitioner’s pensionary benefits and credited to the Government account.

10. In the light of the aforesaid Judgement of this Court, the amount which has been paid to the petitioner as early as in the year 1988 cannot be sought to be recovered. In case amount has been recovered the same shall be refunded the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, the Writ petition is partly allowed directing refund of the amounts recovered and with reference to the other relief pertaining to refixation the petitioner is directed to give a representation on such representation been made, the same shall be considered and orders passed within a period of two months after the affording a personal opportunity to the petitioner to put across his objections to the refixation of pay.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.