Madras High Court
G.Swarna Agness (Alias) ... vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 12 September, 2023
W.P.No.9001 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 12.09.2023
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.9001 of 2018
& WMP No.10849 of 2018
G.Swarna Agness (alias) Swarnammal
... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
represented by the Secretary to Government
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
4. The Commissioner Treasury and Account Department,
Chennai – 600 015.
5. Assistant Treasury Officer,
Sub-Treasury, Tambaram,
Chennai – 600 045.
6. Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements),
Tamil Nadu, 361, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
.... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.P.No.9001 of 2018
Prayer: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records of the 5th respondent in relation to his proceeding issued in
Ref.No.1794/2017/A1, dated 28.12.2017 and quash the same and issue a
consequential direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to get the
pension and family pension which was disbursed before the impugned
proceedings continuously and to direct the respondents refund the amount
which has been already recovered from the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Sathishkumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Neethi Perumal
Government Advocate – R1 to R5
Mr.S.Balaji - R6
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus seeking records of the 5th respondent, Assistant Treasury Officer,
Sub-Treasury, Tambaram in respect of proceedings dated 28.12.2017 and
quash the same and issue a direction to the respondents to permit the
petitioner to get pension and family pension which was disbursed before the
impugned proceedings. The petitioner also seeks refund of the amount which
had already been recovered from the pension of the petitioner.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had been stated
that the petitioner, a senior citizen, was appointed as full time pre-vocational
instructor in CSI Middle School at Tambaram on 27.01.1977. She worked till
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9001 of 2018
30.11.1995 when she retired on attaining the age of superannuation. She was
granted pension after commutation of pension. She was also getting family
pension consequent to the death of her husband who worked as clerk in
Corley High School at Tambaram.
3. The petitioner claimed that a portion of her pension and family
pension were reduced from July, 2017. She made enquiries and obtained
information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was stated that
pension of Rs.2,550/- was being paid instead of Rs.1275/- for the period from
January, 2006 till June, 2017 resulting in the excess payment of Rs.5,96,908/-
It had been stated that the said proceedings of the Assistant Treasury Officer,
Sub-Treasury, Tambaram was dated 28.12.2017 and the same was also
enclosed along with the information received. The petitioner claimed that this
really put her to much hardship and stated that the said order should be
interfered with and set aside by this Court.
4. The third respondent had filed a counter affidavit wherein it had been
stated that the petitioner is drawing superannuation pension consequent to her
retirement on 30.11.1995 and family pension due to the death of her husband
while in service on 02.11.1976. It had been stated that the Schools in
Tambaram had been transferred to the control of the District Educational
Office at St.Thomas Mount. No specific statement was made whether
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9001 of 2018
recovery was proper or not.
5. The fifth respondent, Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub-Treasury,
Tambaram had also filed a counter affidavit. The order of the said respondent
is impugned in this Writ Petition. It was stated that the petitioner was
working as Vocational Instructor in CSI Middle School at Tambaram and was
receiving pension in the office of the second respondent, Director of
Elementary Education at Chennai. It was submitted that during the
verification of records of Additional Sub-Treasury Office at Tambaram, it was
found that the payment made to the petitioner was in excess and therefore
recovery orders were passed to recover the excess amount paid to the
petitioner. It had been stated that this fact has also been communicated to the
petitioner herein. It was also stated that the excess payment paid to the
petitioner was to the tune of Rs.5,93,908/-.
6. It had been stated that the petitioner had been drawing two pensions,
one from her own service and the other family pension on account of the death
of her husband. It had been stated that the service pension was Rs.1275/- and
the family pension was also Rs.1275/- and a total sum of Rs.2550 was being
paid to the petitioner herein.
7. It had been stated that the actual fixation should be Rs.1275/- and on
revision as per G.O.Ms.No.235 Finance Department dated 01.06.2009, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9001 of 2018
correct fixation would be Rs.3,050/-. It had also been stated that consequent
to the implementation of the pay commission, the pension equivalent to the
pre-revision amount of Rs.2,550/- was taken to calculation instead of
Rs.1275/- and therefore there had been excess payment made to the petitioner
herein. It had been stated that it was this amount which is sought to be
recovered from the petitioner.
8. The sixth respondent had also filed a counter affidavit wherein it had
been stated that the Accountant General is the nominated Accounts Officer of
the Government of Tamil Nadu who was vested with the responsibility to
issue authorisation for pensionary benefits of the employees. It had been
stated that recovery proceedings had been issued by the said respondent
leading to recovery of pension/family pension. It had been stated that the
recovery is proper and that the petitioner had gained advantage by improper
additional and excess pension paid for a period of nearly 10 1/2 years.
9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment
in the case of State of Punjab V. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in
(2015) 4 SCC 334 and stated that taking into account the age of the petitioner
herein, the recovery would be extremely iniquitous. It had been further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9001 of 2018
contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner was not put to notice and
her explanation was not sought.
11. This contention has been specifically contested, denied and disputed
on the side of the respondents. It had been stated that notice was issued and
only after receipt of explanation from the petitioner, recovery proceedings had
been passed.
12. It was also contended that the judgment relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable to the petitioner herein,
since she is drawing two pensions, one on account of her own service and the
other on account of the death of her husband who had also worked as a clerk
in the Corley High School, Tambaram. It was also stated that the total
amount of Rs.2550/- (Rs.1275 + Rs.1275) was taken into account for fixation
whereas only one should have taken for fixation and since the total amount of
Rs.2550/- had been taken into consideration, there had been an excess
pension paid to the petitioner herein.
13. These are facts which are not directly denied or disputed by the
petitioner herein. It is clear that the petitioner, as a double pensioner, had got
the benefit of getting excess pension paid for a period of nearly 10 1/2 years
from January, 2006 to June, 2017. Once that is accepted, there is an
obligation on her to repay the said amount. The contention of the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9001 of 2018
that the said recovery is iniquitous can be addressed by spreading the recovery
in instalments.
14. In view of these facts and since calculation has to be made only by
the fifth respondent and it is stated that she had also given explanation prior to
passing of the recovery proceedings and the entire issue rests on facts and
figures, it would be extremely inappropriate on the part of this Court to once
again re-visit the said calculation.
15. It was contended that the amount was directed to be recovered in
120 instalments, of which, 7 instalments have been paid and there are 113
instalments still to be recovered from the pension of the petitioner herein. I
direct that the number of instalments should be further spread over to 120
instalments instead of 113 instalments.
16. Observing as above and retaining the impugned order of recovery,
this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous
Petition is also dismissed.
Sl 12.09.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.9001 of 2018
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
Sl
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
represented by the Secretary to Government
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3. The District Educational Officer,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
4. The Commissioner Treasury and Account Department,
Chennai – 600 015.
5. Assistant Treasury Officer,
Sub-Treasury, Tambaram,
Chennai – 600 045.
6. Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements),
Tamil Nadu, 361, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
W.P.No.9001 of 2018
& WMP No.10849 of 2018
12.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
