Madras High Court
P.Thangaraj vs The Union Of India Rep By on 9 September, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.614 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.614 of 2023
and W.M.P.Nos.557 & 558 of 2023
P.Thangaraj,
Retired Head Constable,
(Railway Police Wing), Tiruchirappalli Railway Unit,
Residing at Kamatchi Amman Koil Street,
Thiruvaduthurai (P.O.), Kuthalam Taluk,
Nagapattinam District. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Union of India Rep by
The General Manager,
Southern Railway, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Senior Divisional Finance Manager,
Southern Railway, Tiruchirappalli Division,
Tiruchirappalli. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the order of the 2nd respondent dated 30.08.2022 and quash the
same with consequential direction, directing the respondents to restore
the original amount of pension receive by the petitioner, prior to Aug,
2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.No.614 of 2023
For petitioner : Mr.V.Ravikumar
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan
Senior Panel Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the
2nd respondent dated 30.08.2022 and for a consequential direction to the
respondents to restore the pension of the petitioner which he was
receiving prior to August, 2022.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.
3.The case of the petitioner is that he was enlisted as a Grade-II
Police Constable in the Railways and he joined services on 02.11.1970.
He was thereafter upgraded to the post of Naik in the year 1984. The
subsequent up-gradation to the post of Head Constable took place in the
year 1997. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.04.2008. The pension amount payable to the
petitioner was properly fixed and in the year 2016, the pension was
revised considering the 7th Pay Commission recommendation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2 nd respondent all of a
sudden issued the impugned proceedings dated 30.08.2022, whereby the
original pension of the petitioner at Rs.18,250/- was reduced to
Rs.16,450/-. That apart, the 2nd respondent had also ordered for the
recovery of the excess pension amount paid to the petitioner. Aggrieved
by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
5.In the considered view of this Court, when the 2 nd respondent
proceeded to revise the pension of the petitioner, the minimum
requirement is to issue notice to the petitioner and inform the petitioner
about the revision of the pension and afford opportunity to the petitioner
to give his reply in that regard. The 2nd respondent has straightaway
issued the impugned order by revising the pension and reducing the same
and such order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner. Hence,
the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent is in violation of
the principles of natural justice.
6.The next issue is as to whether the 2nd respondent could have
ordered for the recovery of the pension amount which is alleged to have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been paid in excess. The law on this issue is no longer res integra and it
is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and
others, reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334. The Hon'ble Supreme Court made
it very clear that where any amount has been paid in excess without there
being any fault on the part of the recipient, the same cannot be recovered
from the employee.
7.In the light of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings of
the 2nd respondent dated 30.08.2022 is hereby quashed. If the 2nd
respondent is entitled to reduce the pension, the petitioner shall be put on
notice and the petitioner shall be afforded opportunity to give his reply
on the proposed reduction of the pension amount. Thereafter, orders shall
be passed by the 2nd respondent on its own merits and in accordance with
law. Even if ultimately the pension amount is revised / reduced, the
pension amount paid in excess cannot be recovered from the petitioner
since, such excess payment was not due to the fault of the petitioner.
Therefore, even in the event of passing a fresh order revising the pension,
the 2nd respondent cannot order for recovery of the excess amount paid to
the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.In the result, this Writ Petition stands allowed with the above
directions. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed. No costs.
09.09.2024
krk
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Union of India Rep by
The General Manager,
Southern Railway, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Senior Divisional Finance Manager,
Southern Railway, Tiruchirappalli Division,
Tiruchirappalli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
krk
09.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
