Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1719 (MAD)

A. Parasuraman v. Superintendent of Police

2012-04-03

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner joined as Police Constable on 12.10.1951 and was promoted as Head Constable on 24.12.1962. The petitioner was temporarily promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 13.11.1972 and regularized on 19.03.1975. 2. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.1987, thereafter vide D.O.1255/87 C.No.A4/18619/87 dated 22.06.1987, the petitioner was granted selection grade in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from 19.03.1975, i.e. the date when he completed 10 years of service as Sub-Inspector of Police. 3. On attaining superannuation, the petitioner was granted pension in the selection grade Sub-Inspector, in view of the order granting of selection grade. 4. In view of subsequent revision of pension from time to time, petitioner was drawing pension at the rate of Rs.3250/- per month with other allowances. 5. The pension was received by petitioner till August 2001. Thereafter, all of a sudden, without any notice and opportunity of hearing to petitioner, a sum of Rs.858/- (Rupees Eight Hundred and Fifty Eight only) was recovered from the pension of petitioner in August 2001, and thereafter monthly recovery was made, from the pension. 6. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of respondents, filed a representation against recovery of amount from his pension. The petitioner was informed that the recovery was being made in view of the order passed by the Treasury Officer, in refixing the pension of petitioner. 7. On further enquiry, the petitioner was supplied with the order passed by the Treasury and Accounts Department, which reads as under: "ANNEXURE-VIII Treasury and Accounts Department Sir, From To ThiruM.Kandavelu Thiru A.Parasuraman, Assistant Treasury Office, 24-H-10,Vanniar St., Chidambaram Kottakarai, Vadalur-607 303. L.Dis.2585/A6/dt.13-10-2001 Sub: Pension – Recovery of Pension details intimated. Ref: Application of the Pension dt. Nil. A copy of the Accountant General, Chennai-18 audit noted is enclosed herewith. Based on this, recovery has been effected from your pension from the month of August 2001 As per G.O.Ms.200 Finance. Your Pension has been wrongly fixed by your Department Rs.3250/- instead of Rs.2650/-. Therefore, extra amount 23356/- should be recovered from your monthly Pension. Encl: Extract of Audit Note Sigd/-.... Assistant Treasury Officer, Chidambaram" 8. Based on this, recovery has been effected from your pension from the month of August 2001 As per G.O.Ms.200 Finance. Your Pension has been wrongly fixed by your Department Rs.3250/- instead of Rs.2650/-. Therefore, extra amount 23356/- should be recovered from your monthly Pension. Encl: Extract of Audit Note Sigd/-.... Assistant Treasury Officer, Chidambaram" 8. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the pension of petitioner was rightly fixed, as he was entitled to pension on the selection grade, as the order granting selection grade to petitioner was passed with retrospective effect after his retirement, which is in full force and has not been cancelled till date. 9. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground that though it affects the civil rights of petitioner, no notice was issued before refixing the pension of petitioner and ordering recovery of amount. 10. In addition, the recovery is also challenged on the ground, that it is well settled law that benefit even if granted wrongly, cannot be withdrawn, unless there are allegations of fraud or misrepresentation. 11. The writ petition is opposed by learned Additional Government Pleader, on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to pension on the selection grade. 12. It is also contention of learned Additional Government Pleader that as the pension was wrongly fixed, by taking into consideration selection grade, therefore, the error was corrected, for which there was no necessity to issue any notice to the petitioner. 13. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. It is not open to the respondents to revise the pension of petitioner or order recovery without following principles of natural justice, specially when it is not disputed, that the petitioner was granted selection grade, on expiry of 10 years of regular service on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in contending that the impugned order is contrary to law, that no recovery could be effected, even if benefit was granted wrongly, in absence of any allegations of fraud or misrepresentation against petitioner. 15. The impugned order, being contrary to settled principles of law, cannot be sustained. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also right in contending that the impugned order is contrary to law, that no recovery could be effected, even if benefit was granted wrongly, in absence of any allegations of fraud or misrepresentation against petitioner. 15. The impugned order, being contrary to settled principles of law, cannot be sustained. It may also be noticed that once the order of grant of selection grade is in full force, the petition is to be granted on the pay last draw, i.e. in selection grade, as the benefit of selection grade was granted with retrospective effect. 16. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to refund the recovered amount to petitioner, within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order, and also refix the pension as originally fixed on the basis of selection grade. 17. No costs.