WP/30651/2023 of P.THANGAVELU (DECEASED) Vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT on 11 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with the impugned orders passed by the third respondent in Proceedings Rc.No.033104/E3/2022, dated 20.10.2022, and quashing the same, and consequently, directing the third respondent to restore the petitioners’ original basic pension of Rs.10,650/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only) with effect from 01.08.2010 and refund the amounts already recovered from the pension of the petitioners.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were serving as Selection Grade Superintendents in the School Education Department and retired from service while holding the said post in the Selection Grade. The petitioner in W.P.No.30654 of 2023, namely, R.P.Kannan, retired from service on 30.04.2004, whereas the petitioner in W.P.No.30651 of 2023, namely, P.Thangavelu, retired from service on 31.03.1999. After the demise of the said P.Thangavelu, his legal heirs were impleaded as petitioners 2 to 4. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that their pension was revised and fixed at Rs.10,650/-, taking into consideration the Selection Grade pay applicable to the post of Superintendent.

2.1. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, in April 2013, the fifth respondent informed the petitioners that an audit objection had been raised in respect of their revised pension and that the pension had to be restricted to the ordinary scale of pay, as the Selection Grade pay was not applicable. Accordingly, the excess amount paid towards the revised pension was sought to be recovered from the petitioners’ regular pension. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the petitioners submitted applications seeking re-fixation of their pay. However, the third respondent rejected the same vide order dated 20.10.2022, which is impugned in the present Writ Petitions. It is further submitted that the third respondent had recovered a sum of Rs.1,55,429/- from the petitioner in W.P.No.30651 of 2023 and a sum of Rs.75,323/- from the petitioner in W.P.No.30654 of 2023, and remitted the same into the Government account. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the re-fixation is contrary to law. Hence, he prayed to interfere with the impugned order.

3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Government Advocate and would submit that the respondents had re-fixed the pension pursuant to the audit objection and that pay fixation is an expert domain. In the case in hand, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the pay fixation is erroneous is without any basis. Pay fixation is undertaken by persons having expertise in the relevant field, and, in the absence of any allegation of mala fides against the concerned authorities, the question of interference does not arise while exercising the power of judicial review. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petitions.

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

5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court through various aspects relating to pay fixation, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, pay fixation is undertaken by persons having expertise in the relevant field. In the case in hand, the claim of the petitioners is based on certain assertions. However, on a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the authorities had taken into consideration the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.235, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 01.06.2009, as well as the relevant Pay Commission guidelines. Only thereafter, the pension was refixed, and it was found that excess amounts had been paid to the petitioners from the year 2012 onwards. Since pay fixation is an expert domain, and on a perusal of the impugned order, this Court does not find any perversity or arbitrary exercise of power, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the re- fixation.

6. However, insofar as the recovery is concerned, the petitioners are pensioners, and the recovery has been effected for a period exceeding five years, resulting in the recovery of sums of Rs.1,55,429/- and Rs.75,323/-. If such recovery is permitted to be sustained, it would certainly impinge upon their right to life and cause undue hardship to them.

7. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has held that recovery cannot be effected from employees falling within the categories specified therein. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph 18 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:- “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 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.”

8. In view of the above position, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the impugned order insofar as the recovery is concerned. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.10.2022 is hereby quashed to the extent of recovery alone. However, the re-fixation made by the third respondent is confirmed. The respondents are directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,55,429/- to the second petitioner in W.P.No.30651 of 2023, namely, the wife of the deceased first petitioner, P.Thangavelu, and a sum of Rs.75,323/- to the petitioner in W.P.No.30654 of 2023, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of failure to comply with the aforesaid direction within the stipulated period, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the respective amounts from the date of this order till the date of actual payment.

9. In the result, these Writ Petitions are partly allowed as indicated above. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 11-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, St George Fort Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu, Finance Department, St George Fort Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.

3. The Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nandhanam, Chennai- 600 035.

4. Joint Director (Establishment) School Education Directorate of School Education, DPI Complex, College Road, Chennai- 600 006.

5. The Rational Accounts Officer (Audit)

Coimbatore- 641 001.

6. The District Treasury Officer District Treasury, Coimbatore.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP Nos. 30651 and 30654 of 2023 11-09-2026