Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 86076
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Dhandapani, N. Dilip Kumar, JJ
S. Durai Raj – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.1440 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.S. Durai Pandia
For the Respondents: J. Saranya, P. Gnanasekaran, G. Thalaimutharasu
Recovery of payments made by a competent authority is impermissible if there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee and if the recovery order was passed without providing an opportunity for a hearing.
Headnote:(A) Recovery of Pay - Personal Pay - Absence of fraud or misrepresentation - Recovery of amount paid by a competent authority to an employee is unjustified in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud attributable to the employee. (Para 5)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - An order of recovery passed without affording the affected party an opportunity of hearing is unsustainable in law. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the recovery of 5% personal pay from the petitioner without notice or evidence of fraud is legally sustainable.
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to R.Dis.No.828/2008/HC/ dated 18.09.2008 and quash it and further direct the 2nd respondent to refund of recovery amount sum of Rs.43413/- consequently to restore of 5 percentage of personal pay along with revision of pension by this Hon' ble Court.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.)
Challenging the proceedings dated 18.09.2008, the present WritPetition has been filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner passed away. During his service, the petitioner was employed as a Special Grade Record Clerk in the Labour Court, Madurai. After his retirement, 5% personal pay was granted to him. Subsequently, the said personal pay was withdrawn and an order of recovery was passed with effect from 01.08.1992, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the personal pay was initially granted for the period from 1990 to 1998 and was thereafter extended for a further period.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
5. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner in receiving the 5% personal pay. The said personal pay was granted by the competent authority during the petitioner's service and was subsequently extended for a further period. Therefore, in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud attributable to the petitioner, recovery of the amount already paid to him would not be justified. Further, the impugned order of recovery has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
