Smt. A. Prakasi vs The Accountant General, (Accounts and Entitlement), The District Educational Officer and The Correspondent, St. Mary's Higher Secondary School

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 21.06.2005, ordering recovery of the excess payment, made towards bonus increment.

The petitioner, while working as B.T. Assistant, was awarded one bonus increment in the year 1998. On attaining superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2005. After the petitioner retired from service, without issuing any show cause notice, the impugned order was passed, ordering recovery of bonus increments paid to the petitioner.

In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it has been stated, that the petitioner was entitled to bonus increment.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that once the stand of the first respondent is, that the petitioner is entitled to bonus increment, there was no question of recovery, and in any case, no recovery can be ordered, without following the principles of natural justice, and further alleging misrepresentation or fraud against the employee, in getting the benefit sought to be recovered.

On consideration, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Besides the fact, that the first respondent has taken a positive stand, that the petitioner was entitled to bonus increment, even in absence thereof, it is not open to the respondents to recover an amount paid to an employee, even erroneously, in absence of allegations of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee in getting that benefit.

In the present case, there were no allegations of misrepresentation or fraud against the petitioner.

Therefore, no recovery from the pensionary benefit or pension payable to the petitioner could be ordered.

The impugned order, otherwise is also, not sustainable in law, as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, this writ petition allowed, the impugned order of the second respondent is quashed.

No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P.(MD) No.3224 of 2006 is closed.