Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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