WP/27868/2024 of A.S. PALANISAMY Vs THE PENSION PAYMENT OFFICER on 17 September 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 24.02.2023 by and in which there was a notice issued to the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs.9,522/-, as if the same is an excess amount. In this regard, the impugned show cause notice was issued.

2. It is the specific submission of the petitioner that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 from a pensioner no recovery is to be effected, unless there is a misrepresentation or misdemeanor by an employee or pensioner. It is the submission of the party-in-person that even according to the show cause notice, it is not their case. Hence, prayed to interfere with the show cause notice.

3. The said contention was totally objected by the learned Government Advocate and would submit that this being a show cause notice, no civil right is affected. Therefore, mere challenge in respect of the show cause notice is not maintainable. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by either side.

WP No. 27868 of 2024

5. Admittedly, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice, but the contention raised by the petitioner is that for issuance of such show cause notice, the respondent has no legal basis and for which he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (cited supra) and for ready reference, Paragraph No.18 thereof is extracted hereunder: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has

WP No. 27868 of 2024

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.”

6. As per the above judgment, it is amply clear that no notice is permissible to be issued against the retired employee. In the case on hand, admittedly the petitioner is a pensioner and that even according to the alleged show cause notice, there are no allegations as to any misdemeanour against this petitioner.

7. In such view of the circumstances, this Court finds justification in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner is set aside by allowing this Writ Petition. No costs. 17-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MTL

WP No. 27868 of 2024

C.KUMARAPPAN J. MTL To The Pension Payment Officer Nandanam Chennai 600 035 WP No. 27868 of 2024 17-09-2026