In a significant ruling that reinforces legal protection for pensioners and their families, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a recovery order issued against a widow receiving family pension, stating that such recovery, after a long passage of time and without adequate notice, violates principles of natural justice and binding precedents.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Shamim Ahmed in Writ Petition (MD) No.22607 of 2022, filed by A. Pavunammal, widow of B. Aandappan, a former Village Headman from Pudukottai. The petition challenged the proceedings dated 22.08.2022 issued by the Assistant Treasury Officer, Keeranur, which demanded repayment of an alleged excess pension of ₹2,94,233 paid between November 2017 and July 2022.
Background of the Case
B. Aandappan, the petitioner’s late husband, had joined government service in 1957 but was later dismissed by a special ordinance effective from 14.11.1980. Despite this, he was granted a special pension under G.O. Ms. No. 828, dated 23.08.1996. After his death on 19.11.2017, Pavunammal was sanctioned a family pension of ₹6,750 per month starting 20.11.2017.
The pension continued until July 2022, when during an audit by the Regional Joint Director, it was observed that Pavunammal was only eligible for a pension of ₹2,250 plus allowances under G.O. Ms. No. 336, Finance Department, dated 17.11.2017. Citing this discrepancy, the treasury authorities stopped her pension and issued a recovery order for the alleged overpaid amount.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Findings
Violation of Natural Justice:
Justice Shamim Ahmed held that the impugned recovery order was passed without issuing a proper show cause notice or offering sufficient opportunity of hearing, and therefore, violated the basic principles of natural justice.
Delay and Legal Bar on Recovery:
The Court observed that the recovery order was passed more than five years after the retirement and after the death of the government servant. The Judge cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, which held that recovery from retired employees or their families after a prolonged period is impermissible in law.
“The present case is squarely covered by one of the situations summarised by the Honourable Supreme Court, namely, recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year… Recovery of the excess payment cannot be legally sustained.” — Justice Shamim Ahmed
No Misrepresentation or Fraud:
It was not the respondents’ case that the petitioner or her husband misrepresented or committed fraud to receive excess pension. In absence of such allegations, the Court held that recovery is unjustified.
Consent Letter Disputed:
While the authorities claimed Pavunammal had given a consent letter to deduct ₹3,000 monthly, the Court found no credible evidence of such consent and noted that the recovery order was passed on the same day, further reinforcing the lack of due process.
Quoting Judicial Precedents
Justice Shamim Ahmed referred to multiple judgments to reinforce the illegality of the recovery:
State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015):
“Recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year… is impermissible in law.”
Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475:
“No recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess… should be made.”
C. Rajeswari v. The Accountant General (2019):
“Family pension cannot be recovered from the family pensioner, even if an excess amount has been paid by way of either mistake or wrong fixation.”
Court’s Final Decision
Quashing the impugned order dated 22.08.2022, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to:
Pay arrears of pension at ₹6,750/month from 01.08.2022 within six weeks
Resume regular pension payments at the same rate thereafter
“This Court finds no reason to justify the claim of the Respondents to recover the excess pension amount… at this long duration of period.” — Justice Shamim Ahmed
Legal Representation
Petitioner: Represented by Advocate Mr. Alagia Nambi
Respondents:
R1: Accountant General (A&E), represented by Mrs. S. Mahalakshmi
R2 & R3: District and Assistant Treasury Officers, represented by Mr. D. Sadiq Raja, Additional Government Pleader, and Mr. P. Thambidurai, Government Advocate
