Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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.

Similar News