WP/33289/2023 of J.SALATH MARY Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 17 September 2026

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.501/A1/2022 dated 14.06.2023, with a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the death-cum- retirement benefits of the petitioner’s husband without any reduction or recovery and also to pay the family pension within a time frame.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's husband was working in the third respondent's office as a Middle School Headmaster. While he was in service, he died on 11.04.2022 and subsequently, the petitioner was sanctioned the family pension. While so, on 14.06.2023, the fourth respondent issued recovery proceedings on the premise that there was an excess payment made to the petitioner’s husband over and above his entitlement from 2011 to 2022, and directed the authorities to recover a sum of Rs.9,88,934/- from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that her husband died on 11.04.2022 and that the recovery order was issued subsequent to his demise. Therefore, any recovery attempted after the demise of the employee is iniquitous, barred by law and arbitrary. She would further submit that the impugned recovery order outweighs the equitable balance of the employer's right to recovery. Hence, prays to interfere with the same. However, on instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not disputing the pay fixation.

3. The said contention was objected to by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, who would submit that the increment given to the deceased employee is in contravention of the rules, as such increments are only given to those who are stagnant in the same post for more than 10 or 20 years. In the case on hand, the deceased employee was promoted as a Middle School Headmaster. Therefore, he is not entitled to the increment as claimed by him. Therefore, as per Rule 70 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 if any payment was made over and above his entitlement, the same can be recovered from the Government servant and if the Government servant is deceased, recovery can be effected from the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG)/Pension of the legal heirs. Hence, he would contend that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

4. The said contention was reiterated by the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent, and he justified the re-fixation of the pay. It is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that as per Rule 58-A of the Tamil Nadu Financial Code, Volume-I, the Government dues, including the overpayment of Pension/Family Pension, may be recovered from the Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity and from the Dearness Allowance and Additional Dearness Allowance on Pension/Family Pension, without obtaining the consent of either the pensioner or the member of the family of the deceased Government servant concerned. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

6. Before proceeding with the factual matrix, it is appropriate to record that the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is not raising any objections in respect of the pay re-fixation. The present writ petition, though initially disputing the pay re-fixation, is now restricted the scope only to the extent of the recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,88,934/-, which was allegedly paid to the petitioner’s husband over and above his entitlement. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased employee's case squarely falls within the parameters of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

7. According to the judgment in the White Washer's case, in the case on hand, since the recovery pertains to the period from 2011 to 2022, it would fall within the category of a recovery sought to be made for an amount which had been paid for more than five years. Furthermore, though in the present case the petitioner's husband had not superannuated, he passed away prior to the issuance of the impugned order dated 14.06.2023. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if any recovery is allowed to continue, it would outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. Otherwise, after a long lapse of time and that too subsequent to the demise of her husband, the petitioner would be put in an iniquitous position, which would directly affect her constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.501/A1/2022 dated 14.06.2023 is liable to be interfered with and the same is accordingly set aside only to the extent of the recovery. It is made clear that the pay re-fixation made against the late husband of the petitioner is confirmed.

8. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed, setting aside the recovery alone. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 17-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NSL To

1. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

2. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai - 600006.

3. The District Elementary Education Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

4. The Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Teynampet, Chennai-18.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NSL WP No. 33289 of 2023 17-09-2026