Kamakshi vs The Office of the Principal, The Sub Treasury Officer and The Superintending Engineer

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner''s husband was retired from service after rendering long years of service under the third Respondent on 30.11.1984. Thereafter, he was sanctioned pension and he received pension until, he died on 08.01.2003.

Thereafter, the Petitioner was sanctioned with family pension. The family pension was fixed at Rs. 3,626/-. While so, from November 2003, the second Respondent deducted Rs. 1000/-from the family pension without any written order. The Petitioner was not aware as to why the recovery of Rs. 1000/-was made. The recovery of Rs. 1000/-was further enhanced to Rs. 1500/-with effect from 01.04.2005. Again it was enhanced to Rs. 2000/-from 01.04.2006. The entire pension was stopped after from July 2006.

While so, the first Respondent passed the impugned order dated 25.02.2005, stating that there was erroneous revision of pension as on 01.12.1984. According to the first Respondent, the Petitioner''s husband should have been paid the pension of Rs. 669/-as on 01.12.1984, but it was erroneously fixed at Rs. 732/-. Due to this erroneous fixation, there was excess payment paid to the Petitioner. It is strange that not even the working sheet as to excess payment was furnished to the Petitioner. It is admitted that the recovery of Rs. 1000/-at the first instance from November 2003 and thereafter, Rs. 1500/-from 01.04.2005 and Rs. 2000/-from 01.04.2006 was without notice and without hearing the Petitioner. There was also No. written order when the pension was totally stopped from July 2006.

In the said circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the order dated 25.02.2005 of the first Respondent and to continue to pay her family pension and also for direction to refund the deducted amount.

The Petitioner filed M.P. No. 1 of 2007 in W.P. No. 5528 of 2007, seeking for direction to pay her monthly pension and arrears of family pension from July 2006 to till date.

In these circumstances, the writ petition was admitted on 04.07.2007. Thereafter, when the interim application was pending, the pension from July 2006 was paid and the same was recorded by this Court on 14.12.2007.

The Respondents filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations.

Heard both sides.

9.. The Petitioner''s husband served as an Administrative Officer under the third Respondent and he retired from service on 30.11.1984. He was in receipt of pension until he died on 08.01.2003. Thereafter, the Petitioner was paid family pension. All these facts are not in dispute.

While so, all of a sudden, a deduction of Rs. 1000/-was made from pension from November 2003. It is also admitted that for making

the said deduction, No. written order was issued and the Petitioner was not heard as to why she was paid reduced pension.

The deduction was raised from Rs. 1000/-to Rs. 1500/-from 01.04.2005. Thereafter, from 01.04.2006 deduction was further enhanced to Rs. 2000/-. Thereafter, from July 2006, the entire family pension was stopped. In the meantime, the first Respondent passed the impugned communication dated 25.02.2005, stating that the recovery was made pursuant to the erroneous fixation of pension as on 01.12.1984, about two decades back.

According to the first Respondent, as on 01.12.1984, the Petitioner''s husband should have been paid pension of Rs. 669/-, but it was fixed at Rs. 732/-. In view of this erroneous fixation as on 01.12.1984, excess payment was paid to the Petitioner''s husband and that resulted in excess payment in family pension also. Further, it is stated that erroneous calculation was due to the fact that the demotion of Petitioner from Administrative Officer to Superintendent was not taken into account.

It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner''s husband did not make any misrepresentation in the matter of fixation of pension. If the first Respondent, erroneously fixed pension in 1984 at the rate of Rs. 732/-instead of Rs. 639/-, the same could not be rectified after 20 years that too after the death of the person.

The Petitioner''s husband was in receipt of pension from 01.12.1984 till his death on 08.01.2003 for about 20 years. Thereafter, the Petitioner has been in receipt of family pension. But the Respondents 1 and 2 resorted to reduction in the payment of family pension without issuing any notice and without hearing the Petitioner as to why they were making reduction in the payment of pension. The method adopted by the Respondents 1 and 2 is highly arbitrary and the violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is also in violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the Petitioner was unjustly deprived of her livelihood. Furthermore, when the alleged erroneous fixation in 1984 was not due to any misrepresentation of the Petitioner''s husband, the first Respondent is not correct in effecting recovery after 25 years that too without any notice and without any order. This Court came for the

rescue of the writ Petitioner after she approached this Court. Now the pension is paid from July 2006. However, the illegally deducted amount from November 2003 is yet to be refunded.

I am of the view that the impugned order dated 25.02.2005 is illegal and the deductions made from the family pension is also illegal.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in D. Palavesamuthu Vs. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, . The following passage in paragraph No. 6 is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and the same is extracted hereunder:

...Even if it is accepted for the argument sake that salary of the Petitioner is fixed in a wrong scale of pay, it is the fault committed by the Department and their Officers, for which the Petitioner should not be penalised after a lapse of number of years that too after retirement of the Petitioner.

In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the Respondents 1 and 2 to refund the recovered amount within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terMs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No. costs.