Madras High Court
The District Treasury Officer vs D.Susairaj on 9 November, 2017
Author: Huluvadi G. Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 9.11.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN W.A.No.1373 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.18848 of 2017 The District Treasury Officer, (District Treasury), Perambalur. Appellant Versus 1. D.Susairaj 2. The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Mount Road, Chennai 600 006. Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19.8.2016 passed in W.P.No.2647 of 2014 on the file of this court. For appellant : Mr.R.Prathapkumar, AGP For R1 : Mr.R.Premnarayan For R2 : Mr.G.Vijayshankar JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.) Challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the State was directed to repay the amount recovered from the writ petitioner relying upon the decision in STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) ((2015) 4 SCC 334), the present writ appeal has been filed.
2. The facts of the case required for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:-
Consequent to the revision of the pay as per the V Pay Commission, the pension payable to the writ petitioner, who retired on 30.8.2016, was wrongly calculated and subsequently, based on the objection raised by the internal audit, it was found that some amount seems to have been paid in excess and hence, ordered for recovery and a consent letter was obtained from the writ petitioner on 28.11.2011, wherein he has given consent for recovery of the amount in monthly instalments basis. Accordingly, he has paid a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and the entire amount has been recovered. After completion of the installation, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition in the year 2014, contending that the said recovery is illegal relying upon the decision as cited supra.
3. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who took notice at the time of admission.
4. Our attention has been drawn to the decision in the White Washer's case wherein it has been held that such a recovery is impersmissible. But, the case on hand, in its facts and circumstances, stand on a different footing for more than one reason. Firstly, when the mistake in calculation of the pension was found out during the month of August 2011 and recovery was started from October 2011 till June 2013 based on the consent given by the writ petitioner, the writ petition has been filed in the year 2014. In the case relied upon by the writ petitioner, he had moved the court in time, but, in the case on hand, the writ petitioner has not moved this court in time and further, he had submitted himself for recovery of the amount paid in excess in monthly instalments as per the consent letter dated 28.11.2011 and subsequently, the entire amount as claimed in the audit objection also seems to have been recovered but, only thereafter, he has filed the writ petition for return of the recovered amount. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment cited supra, relied upon by the writ petitioner will not come to his rescue. In that view of the matter, we uphold the contentions of the learned Additional Government Pleader.
5. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(H.G.R.,J.)(T.K.R.,J.) 9.11.2017.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ssk.
To:
1. The District Treasury Officer, (District Treasury), Perambalur.
2. The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Mount Road, Chennai 600 006.
HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.
AND RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J ssk.
W.A.No.1373 of 20179.11.2017.