Madras High Court
S.R. Ranganathan vs The Assistant Audit Officer on 19 July, 2021
W.A.No.277 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.07.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
W.A. No.277 of 2019
S.R. Ranganathan ... Appellant
vs
1. The Assistant Audit Officer, (A.A.O.)
The Principal Accountant General (A &E)
Chennai - 600 018.
2. The Additional Treasury Officer,
Krishnagiri District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 19.09.2017, passed in W.P.No.34357 of 2015, insofar it relates
to giving liberty to the respondents to re-fix the pay (pension) of the
appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Suthakar
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash
Government Advocate
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page No.1 of 7
W.A.No.277 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Krishnan Ramasamy, J.,)
This is an intra Court Appeal, filed against the order passed in
W.P.No.34357 of 2015, dated 19.09.2017.
2. The facts in nutshell are as follows:-
i) The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The appellant filed
the aforesaid Writ Petition challenging the proceedings of the second
respondent, in Na.Ka.No.3893/2015/A4, dated 21.09.2015,
and the consequential proceedings, bearing
Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3893/2015/A4, dated 21.09.2015. By virtue of the said
proceedings, the second respondent called upon the appellant/writ petitioner
to refund the excess pension paid to him.
ii) The Writ Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the Writ
Petition, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in
[(2015) 4 SCC 334 . In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held
that, in terms of clause (ii) para No.18 of the above cited case, no recovery
from pension is permissible, and therefore, the case on hand deserves
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.277 of 2019
consideration in view of the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforementioned case, and hence, quashed the impugned
orders/proceedings passed by the second respondent, both dated
21.09.2015. However, the learned Single Judge, while doing so, granted
liberty to the respondents to correct the error with regard to the fixation of
pay. Consequent upon the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the
Senior Accounts Officer, Legal Cell, vide proceedings bearing No.AG
(A&E) Legal Cell/WP.34357/2016, revised the pension and forwarded the
same to the second respondent, who, by virtue of proceeding, dated
22.02.2018, refixed the pension.
iii) Now, the grievance of the appellant herein is only with regard to
particular portion of the order, by which, the respondents were granted
liberty to correct the error that crept in fixation of pay. Challenging the said
portion of the order alone, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Government Advocate for respondents.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.277 of 2019
4. Originally, the Writ Petition was filed for the following
prayer:-
''For issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for
the records pertaining to para No.2(vi) of the
proceeding of the first respondent, proceeding, bearing
Na.Ka.No.3893/2015/A4 of the second respondent
and the consequential proceeding bearing
Na.Ka.No.3893/2015/A4, dated 21.09.2015 of the
second respondent, and to quash the same''.
4.1 A perusal of the above extracted portion would show that the
appellant filed the Writ Petition to quash the recovery proceedings alone. It
could be inferred that, before initiating the recovery proceedings, the
respondents would have certainly corrected the error that crept in fixation of
pay, and based on such correction only, the respondents would have,
perhaps, called upon the appellant to refund the excess pension paid to him.
The learned Single Judge, might not have taken into consideration of such
aspect, and granted liberty to the respondents to correct the error once
again, which resulted in filing of this Writ Appeal. In the impugned order,
irrespective of the factor, whether such liberty is granted or not, certainly,
the respondents are entitled to revise/re-fix the pension and if there is any
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.277 of 2019
correction, or, if the pension fixed originally was wrong to the appellant,
they can correct the same. In the present case, the respondents sought to
refund the excess pension recovered from the appellant and also refixed the
pension, vide proceeding, dated 22.02.2018, which is subsequent to the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, vide order,
dated 19.09.2017. Thus, we would like to make it clear that the proceeding
issued by the second respondent, dated 22.02.2018 is neither the proceeding
issued in compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge nor, it
is a proceeding issued consequent to the order of the learned Single Judge,
but, it is a proceeding issued subsequent to the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. Therefore, we are of the view that any proceeding issued,
subsequent to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, cannot be
challenged by way of an Appeal and if the appellant is aggrieved by such
proceeding, the same can be challenged only by filing Writ Petition. As we
have stated in the earlier portion of this judgment, even if liberty is not
granted, the respondents have all the power to correct the impugned
proceedings, refix the pension if it was wrongly fixed earlier. Therefore, we
do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.277 of 2019
5. In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
19. 07.2021
Index : Yes/No
sd
To
1. The Assistant Audit Officer, (A.A.O.)
The Principal Accountant General (A &E)
Chennai - 600 018.
2. The Additional Treasury Officer,
Krishnagiri District.
Pushpa Sathyanarayana,J.,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.277 of 2019
&
Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,
sd
W.A. No.277 of 2019
19.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
