The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that recovery of excess pension paid to a retired government servant, without issuing a show cause notice and after a long delay of over 15 years, violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law.
Justice Shamim Ahmed passed the judgment on July 24, 2025, in a writ petition filed by Kaliamoorthy, a retired Joint Deputy Director (Seed Inspection) in the Agriculture Department. The Court quashed the order dated September 21, 2021, issued by the Treasury Officer, Thanjavur, which had directed recovery of ₹3,78,907 from the petitioner’s pension.
Background
Kaliamoorthy had joined service on October 17, 1968, and retired on January 30, 2004. He was receiving pension at the rate of ₹66,619 per month based on the 7th Pay Commission revision. In 2021, the Treasury Officer issued an order stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the revised pension amount and that the excess paid would be recovered in 24 monthly installments.

Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, through counsel Ms. Shunmalar, contended that the recovery was initiated without issuing a show cause notice and that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part. It was argued that recovery after such a long period was unjust and placed undue hardship on a retired employee solely dependent on pension.
Reliance was placed on several precedents including:
- State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334
- Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475
- C. Rajeswari v. Accountant General (A&E), Chennai
- L. Annamalai v. Accountant General (A&E), Chennai
Respondents’ Stand
The government argued that the pension was erroneously fixed under the 7th Pay Commission on the e-pension portal and that the petitioner was not eligible for the enhancement. Hence, the excess amount was sought to be recovered.
Court’s Analysis
The Court found that there was no material to show the petitioner was issued a show cause notice before initiating recovery. “Thus, it is established that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity or a show cause notice… Hence, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice,” the Court said.
Justice Shamim Ahmed also noted that the recovery was being attempted more than 15 years after the petitioner’s retirement, and such belated action would result in “harsh consequences” and is “iniquitous and arbitrary.”
The Court relied heavily on Rafiq Masih, where the Supreme Court had ruled that recovery from retired employees, especially after long delays and absent fraud, was impermissible.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed the impugned recovery order and directed the respondents to continue paying the petitioner’s pension at the current rate and to clear any arrears within six weeks.
“There is no merit whatsoever in the claim of the respondents to recover the excess pension amount paid to the petitioner at this belated stage,” the Court concluded.
Case Title: Kaliamoorthy v. The Accountant General (A&E) & Ors
W.P.(MD) No. 19681 of 2021 | Date of Judgment: July 24, 2025