State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

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