Recently, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that pension payments erroneously extended due to factual ineligibility can be lawfully recovered from a retired employee, notwithstanding the absence of fraud or misrepresentation. Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that “any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right.”
The case involved a retired Lecturer of an aided institution governed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The petitioner, who was 86 years old at the time of filing the writ petition and since deceased, was granted a higher pension based on the assumption that he had completed three years of service in the Selection Grade, which was a qualifying condition under the applicable University Grants Commission (UGC) norms.
Following an audit, it was discovered that the petitioner had only completed 2 years and 7 months in the Selection Grade prior to retirement, falling short of the mandated three-year threshold. The audit report noted that the pension had been wrongly calculated on the assumption that he was entitled to the scale applicable to Lecturers in Selection Grade with over three years of service. In consequence, the Assistant Treasury Officer initiated recovery proceedings through an order.
The petitioner challenged the recovery on the ground that no notice or opportunity to respond was provided at any stage, thereby violating principles of natural justice. He also relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, which held that recovery of excess payments from retired employees, where no misrepresentation was involved, could amount to legal arbitrariness.
However, the Court found these precedents inapplicable to the present case. It held that the petitioner’s ineligibility for the higher pension was not a matter of administrative interpretation but a verifiable factual shortfall in qualifying service. The Court observed, “The error in pay fixation was purely mechanical and undisputed – a shortfall of five months in qualifying service that directly impacted eligibility. In such circumstances, where the material facts are objectively verifiable and not susceptible to subjective explanation, the absence of notice, though procedurally improper, has not resulted in any real prejudice.”
Relying on Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court emphasized that public funds disbursed without legal sanction, whether due to clerical mistake or mutual error, may be recovered unless exceptional hardship is demonstrated. The Court reiterated, “Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships.”
Finally, the Court concluded that since the excess amount arose from a misapplication of eligibility criteria, the petitioner had no lawful entitlement to the enhanced pension. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the recovery upheld.
Case Title: P.Ganga Parameshwaran Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Case No.: W.P. (MD) No.14857 of 2016
Coram: Justice A.D. Maria Clete
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. M.Saravanan
Advocate for Respondent: Government Advocate T. Amjad Khan, Advs. K.Govindarajan and P. Aathimoola Pandian
Picture Source :
