Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Recovery from Retired Employees Deemed Unjustified After a Decade, Violates Natural Justice Principles – Madras High Court Quashes Pension Recovery Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Madras High Court has quashed a government order for the recovery of alleged excess pension payments to a retired lecturer, terming the action as “unjust, arbitrary, and a violation of the principles of natural justice.” The decision reiterates that retrospective pension recovery without fault from the pensioner, especially after a significant lapse of time, is impermissible.

The petitions centered around a government order demanding the recovery of excess pension paid to Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, a retired lecturer, which allegedly occurred due to an administrative oversight in calculating his pension benefits. His wife, Sundrambal, challenged the order posthumously on his behalf, claiming that no misrepresentation or fault existed from the pensioner’s side that would justify the recovery. She also sought directives for the continuation of the family pension based on the last received pension amount before deductions began.

The court observed that the petitioner’s husband received a revised pension without any fraud on his part, and the administrative error leading to the excess payment was solely on part of the pension disbursing authority. Justice Devanand noted:

Violation of Natural Justice: The recovery order was issued without prior notice, denying the pensioner an opportunity to contest or clarify the alleged discrepancy. “Passing an order without notifying the aggrieved party is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice,” remarked the Justice.

Impermissibility of Retrospective Recovery: Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and the Thomas Daniel case, the court highlighted that retrospective recovery actions, particularly after ten years of retirement without any fault on the part of the pensioner, are impermissible and unjust.

Relief Granted: Consequently, the court set aside the impugned recovery order and directed the relevant authorities to resume payment of family pension to the petitioner and refund any amounts that had been wrongly deducted.

Decision: The writ petitions were allowed. The court directed the respondents to reinstate the full pension benefits to the petitioner’s wife and to return any deducted amounts within six weeks.

Date of Decision: 26th April 2024

Sundrambal vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Latest Legal News