Manipur High Court
Smt. Potsangbam Victoria Devi vs The Union Of India Through Its ... on 6 September, 2022
Page |1
KABOR Digitally
by
signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AMBAM KABORAMBAM
LARSON AT IMPHAL
LARSON Date: 2022.09.08
16:09:36 +05'30' W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
Smt. Potsangbam Victoria Devi, aged about 61 years, W/o M.
Dolen Singh, resident of Hiyangthang Maning Leikai, P.O. &
P.S. Wangoi, Imphal West District, Manipur - 795009.
....... Petitioner/s
- Versus -
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Education, Department of Culture, Government of India,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Sangeet Natak Akademi, represented by its Secretary,
Rabindra Bhawan, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Jawarharlal Nehru Manipur Dance Academy,
represented by its Director, Imphal, P.O. & P.S. Imphal,
District Imphal West, Manipur - 795001.
4. The Ministry of Culture, Government of India, 502-C, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
.... Respondent/s
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
Page |2
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. BR Sharma, Sr.PCCG for R-1
Mr. Servan Kumar, Adv. for R-2
Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Sr. Adv. for R-3
Date of Hearing : 04.07.2022.
Date of Judgment & Order : 06.09.2022.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(CAV)
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of
certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned letter dated 28.5.2020 and
the provisional pension payment order dated 1.7.2020 and to direct the
respondents to release the service pension and other retirement benefits of
the petitioner by calculating her pension at the scale of pay which she enjoyed
at the time of her retirement.
[2] 2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is as follows:-
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
Page |3
The petitioner was initially appointed as LDC in Jawaharlal Nehru Manipur
Dance Academy on 30.4.1979 and thereafter, she was appointed to a clear
sanctioned vacant post on 27.10.1979 as LDC and then appointed as Cashier
on 19.5.1982. On 25.8.1984, the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC
and after completion of the office procedure examination, she was promoted
to the post of Accountant on 19.5.1986 and accordingly revised her pay from
Rs.1400-2300 to Rs.1400-2600 with effect from 1.8.1990. On 29.6.1988, the
post of Accountant was re-designated as Assistant and her pay was revised
from Rs.1400-2600 to Rs.1400-2900 for the period from 13.5.1986 to
31.5.1995. On 29.9.2009, the scale of pay of the petitioner under the MACP
scheme was revised in the scale pay of Rs.9300-34000-800 plus GP Rs.4200
to Rs.4600 with effect from 1.9.2008.
[3] Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Section
Officer in the sale of Rs.9300-34000 plus GP Rs.4800 with effect from
22.5.2014 on ad hoc basis and thereafter her ad hoc promotion was
regularised on 4.10.2014 with effect from 22.5.2014. On 8.11.2016, her
probation period was extended for another period of one year with effect from
23.5.2016 and on 2.12.2017, the service of the petitioner to the post of
Section Officer was confirmed with effect from 23.5.2017.
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
Page |4
[4] Pursuant to the retirement of one N Ibetombi Devi with effect
from 31.3.2019, a DPC meeting was held on 4.6.2019 and on the
recommendation of the said DPC, the petitioner was appointed to the post of
Administrative Officer on officiating basis with effect from 1.7.2019 in Level-10
of Pay Matrix under Revised Pay Rules, 2016. On 2.7.2019, the petitioner
was allowed to look after the work of Section Officer (Accounts) in addition to
her normal duties without any extra remuneration and retired from service on
31.12.2019 on superannuation.
[5] According to the petitioner, after the retirement, her service
pension and other retirement benefits have not been released. On 5.5.2020,
the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director, JNMDA for early
release of her due pensionary benefits. While so, on 28.5.2020, the Section
Officer (Admn), JNMDA addressed a letter to the Deputy Secretary (F&A),
SangeetNatakAkademi, New Delhi, wherein it was stated that the pensioner
has retired from service on superannuation after getting promotion to the post
of Administrative Officer on 1.7.2019 with GP Rs.5400/- in PB-3 of Rs.15600-
39000. To bring finalisation for releasement of her retirement benefits, the
respondent authorities reduced the Grade Pay of the petitioner from Rs.5400
to Rs.4600 alleging that the petitioner had applied for releasement of her
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
Page |5
pension and other retirement benefits. On 1.7.2020, the petitioner was given
provisional pension. Since she is not satisfied with the provisional pension,
the petitioner submitted two representations to release her full retirement
benefits and also reason for giving provisional pension. Despite the receipt of
the representations, the respondent authorities have not taken any steps.
Assailing the letter dated 28.05.2020 and the provisional pension order dated
1.7.2020, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
[6] The second respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that
the second respondent instructed all the constituent units of the Akedami to
take corrective measures to withdraw the irregular scales and recovery has to
be made from the employees/pensioners vide email letter dated 17.6.2020.
Accordingly, the pay scale enjoyed by the petitioner as Assistant should be
Rs.1400-2600 instead of Rs.1640-2900 and Rs.5000-8000 in place of
Rs.5500-9000/. It is stated that AB Cell has observed certain irregularities in
number of cases granting 6th Pay Commission pay scale where identification
and rectification have to be done. The financial upgradation under the MACP
scheme was granted to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with
GP Rs.4600 with effect from 1.9.2008.
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
Page |6
[7] It is further stated that the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Section Officer with effect from 22.5.2014 on ad-hoc basis with the pay scale
of Rs.4800/-, the term of probation period was extended for another one year
with effect from 23.5.2016 and the service of the petitioner was confirmed with
effect from 23.5.2017. The petitioner was allowed to look after the work as
Section Officer (Accounts) in addition to her normal duties with effect from
2.7.2019. The petitioner was not regularly promoted to the post of
Administrative Officer, but on the status of officiating for a limited period only.
As such, her pension is to be regulated with the pay scale attached to the post
of Section Officer.
[8] It is stated that the process for releasing the retirement benefits
of the petitioner inclusive of her monthly pension was initiated just after her
retirement. However, due to hindrance caused due to pay anomalies in the
pay scale of Assistant, Section officer and Administrative Officer, the
settlement of the last pay drawn could not be finalised on time and the
academy is trying to settle the problem at the earliest and she was not paid
her provisional pension.
[9] Assailing the impugned letter dated 28.5.2020, Mr. Kh.
Tarunkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grade
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
Page |7
pay of the petitioner i.e. Rs.5400/- was reduced to Rs.4600/- without giving
her any opportunity of being heard and the said reduction of grade pay was
done in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. He would
submit that the petitioner never played any misrepresentation or fraud on her
part to enjoy those financial benefits given to her by the employer from time to
time. Therefore, those financial benefits given to her from time to time without
any misrepresentation of her, cannot be recovered by the respondent
authorities.
[10] The learned counsel further submitted that the alleged no
objection to the recovery of any excess withdrawal of pay and allowances
allegedly given by the petitioner is not correct and the said document was
prepared by the concerned authority in a prescribed format and took her
signature long after her retirement papers i.e. on 18.5.2020. The petitioner
put her signature as she was suffering a lot of hardship after her retirement as
her retirement benefits were not released in time without any fault on her part.
The learned counsel submitted that the impugned letter was addressed in
complete violation of principles of natural justice and also the impugned
provisional pension payment order dated 1.7.2020 was prepared arbitrarily.
Arguing so, the learned counsel prayed for release of due service pension
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
Page |8
and other retirement benefits of the petitioner within the stipulated period
without any recovery from her pensionary benefit.
[11] In fortify his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance upon the following decisions:
(1) State of Punjab and others v. RafiqMashi
(White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334.
(2) High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others
v. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267.
(3) Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and others,
Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010, decided on
2.5.2022 [Supreme Court].
[12] Per contra, Mr. Servan Kumar, the learned counsel for the
second respondent submitted that the impugned letter dated 28.5.2020 was
sent to the Deputy Secretary (Finance & Accounts), Sangeet Natak Akademi,
New Delhi seeking clarification about the scale of pay of Section Officer and
Administrative Officer should be at par i.e. GP of Rs.4600/- in the PB-2 of
Rs.9300-34800/- and the decision is awaiting for further process.
[13] He further submitted that the scale of pay of the Assistant,
Section Officer and the Administrative Officer enjoyed by the petitioner has to
be rectified and withdrawn as instructed by the AB Cell vide order dated
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
Page |9
15.4.2004 and the instruction dated 17.6.2020. He would submit that the
financial upgradation under the MACP scheme was granted to the petitioner
in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with the GP Rs.4600/- with effect from
1.9.2008 and that the academy has also initiated the process in the case of
the petitioner in compliance to the AB Cell's report and directions of the
Ministry of Culture.
[14] The learned counsel next submitted that the substantive post of
the petitioner is Section Officer (Accounts) and, as such, her pension is to be
regulated with the pay scale attached to the post of Section Officer. Since the
petitioner had already enjoyed the financial benefit of GP Rs.4600/- through
MACP, the financial benefit enjoyed by her has to be withdrawn and pay has
to be fixed in the GP of Rs.4600/-. Since a mistake has been committed by
the authority, it has got every right to rectify the same.
[15] The learned counsel submitted that provisional pension payment
order of the petitioner was issued on 1.7.2020 based on the provisional
pension amount in GP Rs.4600/- and the same can be settled once the pay
anomalies rectification is over. The learned Government Advocate urged that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again held that if there is any
misrepresentation or otherwise on the part of the employees or any
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 10
undertaking is given by such employees/pensioners, then the exemption may
not be granted and the excess payment is to be recovered. Therefore, only in
the event of an administrative error, regarding excess payment of
salary/pension, exemptions are to be granted for Group III and Group IV
employees. In the instant case, the petitioner is not a Group III or Group IV
employee and therefore, the petitioner has no right to question the impugned
letter dated 28.05.2020.
[16] The learned counsel lastly submitted that in respect of the
exempted employees, namely Group III and Group IV as well as the retired
employees, the excess payment made is to be recovered from the officials,
who are all responsible and accountable for such excess payments. As such,
in the instant case also, the Court may pass such order to recover the excess
payment from the officials, who are responsible and accountable for the
same.
[17] In support, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the
following decisions:
(1) Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of
Uttarkhand and others, Civil Appeal No.5899
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 11
of 20212, decided on 17.8.20212 [Supreme
Court].
(2) M. Janaki v. The District Treasury Officer,
Tirunelveli and another, W.P.(MD) No.23541 of
2015, decided on 19.06.2019 [Madras High
Court].
(3) Sujata Patra v. The Vice-Chancellor, Utkal
University and others, W.P.(C) No.12853 of
2007, decided on 20.11.2018 [Orissa High
Court].
[18] Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, Learned senior counsel for the third
respondent adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the second
respondent.
[19] This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused
the materials available on record.
[20] The petitioner was initially appointed as LDC at JNDA, Imphal on
30.4.1979 and she was thereafter appointed on a sanctioned vacant post on
27.10.1979. On 24.8.1984, the petitioner was promoted to the post of UDC
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 12
and on completion of the Accounts Training Examination, she was promoted
to the post of Accountant on 19.5.1986. Accordingly, her pay scale was
revised from Rs.1400-2300 to Rs.1400-2600 with effect from 1.8.1990. On
29.6.1998, the post of Accountant was re-designated as Assistant and
accordingly, the pay of the petitioner was revised from Rs.1400-2600 to
Rs.1640-2900. Pursuant to the MACP scheme, the scale of pay of the
petitioner was revised as Rs.9300-34000-800+GP Rs.4200-Rs.4600 GP with
effect form 1.9.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Section Officer in the scale of pay Rs.9300-34000+GP Rs.4800 with effect
form 22.5.2014 on ad-hoc basis and subsequently her ad-hoc promotion was
regularised on 4.10.2014 with effect from 22.5.2014. On the recommendation
of the DPC, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Administrative Officer
on officiating basis with effect from 1.7.2019 in Level-10 of Pay Matrix under
the Revised Pay Rules, 2016. On 2.7.2019, the petitioner was allowed to look
after the work of Section Officer (Accounts) in addition to her normal duties
without any extra remuneration with effect from 2.7.2019. On 31.12.2019, the
petitioner was retired from service on superannuation. Since after retirement
the pension and other retirement benefits was not released, the petitioner
submitted a representation on 5.5.2020 to the Director, JNMDA. Acting on
the representation, the Section Officer (Admn) of the JNMDA addressed the
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 13
impugned letter dated 28.05.2020 to the Deputy Secretary (F&A), Sangeet
Natak Akademi, New Delhi wherein he has stated that to bring finalisation for
release of her retirement benefits, they have reduced the GP from Rs.5400 to
Rs.4600 and she was given provisional pension.
[21] The challenge to the impugned letter dated 28.05.2020 was
made mainly on the ground that without giving the petitioner any opportunity
of hearing, the Section Officer, JNMDA has made reduction of grade pay,,
which is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice.
[22] It is settled that any order passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice save and except certain contingencies of cases, would be a
nullity.
[23] Admittedly, by the impugned letter dated 28.05.2020, the grade
pay of the petitioner has been reduced from Rs.5400/- to Rs.4600/-. For such
reduction, the reasoning stated by the second respondent in the impugned
letter is as follows:
" ..... Actually, Smt. P. Victoria Devi has retired on
superannuation after getting the Promotion of AO/JNMDA
w.e.f. 01/07/2019 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in the PB 3 of
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 14
Rs.15600-39100/-. But after discussed with SNA authority
about the scale of Pay and Grade Pay of A.O., it has been
advised that the scale of Pay of Section Officer and
Administrative Officer should be at par i.e. Grade Pay of
Rs.4600/- in the PB 2 of Rs.9300-34800/-."
[24] In paragraph 27 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the second
respondent stated as under:
"27. That the contents of para 27 are wrong and denied, except those are
matter of records. It is matter of record that the letter dated 28.05.2020 was
sent to Deputy Secretary (Finance & Accounts), Sangeet Natak Akademi,
New Delhi seeking clarification about the scale of pay of Section Officer and
Administrative Officer should be at par i.e. Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in the P.B.-
2 of Rs.9300-34800/- and decision is awaiting for further process."
[25] On a further perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition of the second
respondent, in paragraph 30, it has been stated as under:
"30. .... It is submitted that the scale of Pay of the Assistant
9Rs.1640-2900), Section Officer (Rs.9300-34800 + GP
Rs.4600) and Administrative Officer (Level 10) enjoyed by
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 15
the petitioner has to be rectified and withdrawn as instructed
by AB cells Observation and vide office order no.6(3) IC/95
dated 15th April, 2004 and instruction (email letter dated June
17, 2020). After rectification, the amount does not come to
Rs.14,17,890/-, but recovery has to be made from the
petitioner."
[26] At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner enjoyed the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- for many years before
addressing the impugned letter. According to the learned counsel, the
impugned provisional pension payment order is also not sustainable in the
eye of law since the provisional pension was prepared in the Grade Pay of
Rs.4600/-, though the petitioner has already enjoyed the Grade Pay of
Rs.4800/- from 22.05.2014 till she promoted to the post of Administrative
Officer. Thus, her Grade Pay cannot be reduced to Rs.4600/- and the scale
of pay at Level 10 Pay Matrix enjoyed by her is not liable to be recovered, as
the petitioner has already retired from service. According to the learned
counsel, excess payment made to the petitioner was not on account of any
misrepresentation or fraud on her part.
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 16
[27] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases held that if the
excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of
the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by
applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of
a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be
erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not
recoverable.
[28] It is pertinent to note that if it is proved that an employee had
knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or
wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short
time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion and
the Court may on facts and circumstances of any particular case order for
recovery of amount paid in excess.
[29] As stated supra, in the instant case, the petitioner enjoyed the
higher Grade Pay for many years before addressing the impugned letter. In
fact, she enjoyed the revision of pay on two or three occasions while she was
in service i.e. on 17.07.2000, 29.9.2009, 4.10.2014 and the petitioner never
played any misrepresentation or fraud on her part to enjoy those financial
benefits given to her by the employer from time to time.
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 17
[30] The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, in a catena of
decisions, time and again reiterated that no recovery of excess payment for
no fault of the employee can be made without following the principles of
nature justice. As stated supra, the reduction of pay done in the case of the
petitioner is without giving an opportunity of hearing. Thus, all those financial
benefits given to her from time to time without any misrepresentation and are
not liable to be recovered.
[31] In Rafiq Mashi, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments
have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a
recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class
III and Class IV service (or Group C and
Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or
employees who are due to retire within one
year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess
payment has been made for a period in
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 18
excess of give years, before the order of
recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has
wrongfully been required to discharge duties of
a higher post, and has been paid accordingly,
even though he should have rightfully been
required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at
the conclusion that recovery if made from the
employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or
arbitrary to such an extent, as would far
outweigh the equitable balance of the
employer's right to recover."
[32] In Jagdev Singh, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after
summarising the situations stated in Rafiq Masih, supra, and considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, held as under:
"11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot
apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the
present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 19
the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any
payment found to have been made in excess would be
required to be refunded. The officer furnished an
undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is
bound by the undertaking."
[33] In Thomas Daniel, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the
excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of
the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by
applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of
a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be
erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not
recoverable. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that an attempt to recover
the increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified.
[34] In Chandi Prasad Uniyal, supra, relied upon by the learned
counsel for the second respondent, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
excess payment made due to wrong/irregular pay fixation can always be
recovered.
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 20
[35] In the instant case, as stated supra, the petitioner was enjoying
the revision of pay from the year 1998 and no such undertaking while opting
for the revised pay scale exists at the relevant point of time. Moreover, the
financial benefits given to the petitioner from time to time are without any
misrepresentation. Therefore, the decision in Chandi Prasad Uniyal, supra, is
not applicable to the case on hand.
[36] The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are to the effect
that, for recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances, there are
three conditions wherein the excess payment may be recovered, namely, (i)
excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the
part of the employee, (ii) the employee had knowledge that the payment
received was in excess, and (iii) the error was corrected within a short span of
time of the wrong payment.
[37] It is apposite to mention that the excess amount, if any that has
been paid to the petitioner was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud
on her part and the petitioner also had no knowledge that the amount that was
being paid to her was more than what she was entitled to. It would be out of
place to mention here that the second respondent in his counter at paragraph
13 stated that the Academy had wrongly granted the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 21
which should be of the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-. When the second
respondent himself admitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Section Officer with effect from 22.05.2014 on ad-hoc basis with the pay scale
of Rs.4800/-, the question of reduction of Grade Pay to Rs.4600/- does not
arise.
[38] Though the second respondent contended that Akademi had
wrongly granted Grade Pay of Rs.4800 instead of Rs.4600 to the petitioner
and therefore, the financial benefits enjoyed by the petitioner have to be
withdrawn and also the higher scales granted to her irregularly will have to be
recovered after withdrawing the said benefits, as stated supra, those financial
benefits and grant of Grade Pay are not on the misrepresentation of the
petitioner. Moreover, no such misrepresentation or fraud has been
highlighted and proved by the second respondent. That apart, as stated
supra, the financial benefits given to the petitioner was from the year 1998 i.e.
long time back. In view of the settled law, after a belated stage that too now
after the retirement of the petitioner, no recovery can be made. Thus, without
any authority of law, the authority of the third respondent prepared the
provisional pension payment order in respect of the petitioner on 1.7.2020.
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 22
Therefore, the respondent authorities are duty bound to pay the pension at
the scale of pay which the petitioner enjoyed at the time of the retirement.
[39] The submission of the learned counsel for the second
respondent that if the present writ petition is allowed, many cases will come
up seeking the similar relief cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Coal India Limited and others v.
Saroj Kumar Misrah, (2007) 9 SCC 625, wherein, it has been held as under:
"19. The floodgate argument also does not appeal to us.
The same appears to be an argument of desperation. Only
because there is a possibility of floodgate litigation, a
valuable right of a citizen cannot be permitted to be taken
away. ..."
[40] At this juncture, it is apposite to mention the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu and others v. Union of
India and others, (1994) 4 SCC 521, wherein it has been held that higher
pay scale given erroneously to incumbents without their fault, shall not be
recovered.
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 23
[41] The consent certificate to the effect that the petitioner has no
objection to the recovery of any excess withdrawal of pay and allowances and
Government dues lying against her from her pensionary benefits is
concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
signed the said certificate prepared by the office thereby consenting to deduct
the excess withdrawal of pay and allowances and Government dues so as to
enable to meet her present serious financial hardships. This Court finds some
force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
[42] Normally, if the retiring staff refused to sign in the consent
certificate, the pension proposal could not be processed. Therefore, faced
with that situation only, an employee was signing. In this case also, as rightly
argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner at that stage is
bound to sign the said consent certificate against her will for speedy disposal
of her pension proposal. Therefore, the plea of the second respondent that
based on the consent certificate only deduction was made cannot be
countenanced.
[43] The learned counsel for the second respondent by placing
reliance upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of M. Janaki,
supra, submitted that the respondent concerned may be directed to conduct
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 24
an enquiry in respect of excess payments made to the petitioner and in the
event of any error, lapse, negligence or dereliction of duty, then all suitable
actions are to be initiated against all the officials, who are all responsible and
accountable for compensating the financial loss occurred to the State
Exchequer by imposing recovery proportionately.
[44] This Court considered the aforesaid submission of the learned
counsel for the second respondent and also perused the decision in the case
of M. Janaki, supra. In the event of any proved dereliction of duty or
negligence in the matter of payment of excess financial benefits to the
employees, there is no need to wait for a direction of the Court to initiate
action against the erring officials. When the respondent authorities contend
that if a mistake has been committed by the authority, it has got every right to
rectify the same and why not action against the erring officials in the event of
any proved dereliction of duty.
[45] Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
at hand and to avoid any hardship to the petitioner, who retired from service
on superannuation way back on 31.12.2019, this Court is of the view that no
recovery of the amount that has been allegedly paid in excess to the petitioner
should be made.
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
P a g e | 25
[46] In the result,
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned letter dated 28.05.2020 and the
impugned provisional pension payment order
dated 1.7.2020 are quashed.
(iii) The respondent authorities are directed to
release the service pension and other
retirement benefits of the petitioner by
calculating her pension at the scale of pay
which she enjoyed at the time of her
retirement.
(iv) The aforesaid exercise is directed to be
completed within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(v) No costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
-Larson
W.P.(C) No.631 of 2021
