In a significant ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld the recovery of excess pension paid to a retired lecturer due to a factual error in pay fixation. The court held that when an employee is ineligible for certain benefits due to a verifiable shortfall in service, recovery of excess payments is justified, even after retirement.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, P. Ganga Parameshwaran, was employed as a Lecturer (Selection Grade) at Arulmigu Palaniandavar College of Arts and Culture, an aided institution under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. After retirement, his pension was calculated under the University Grants Commission (UGC) scales applicable to Lecturers in Selection Grade with three or more years of service.
Read also:- Attacks on Lawyers Strike at Heart of Justice System: Kerala HC Rejects Bail Plea
However, an audit later revealed that the petitioner had served only 2 years and 7 months in the Selection Grade, falling short of the mandatory 3-year requirement. Consequently, the Assistant Treasury Officer initiated recovery proceedings on 19.07.2016 to reclaim the excess amount paid.
The petitioner’s legal heirs (as the original petitioner had passed away) challenged the recovery on the following grounds:
- No prior notice or hearing was provided before initiating recovery.
- The audit objection was not shared, denying the petitioner a chance to clarify.
- Reliance was placed on State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (2022), where the Supreme Court barred recovery from retirees in cases of administrative errors.
Read also:- Supreme Court Seeks Independent Mechanism for BCI’s Law College Inspections
- The Tamil Nadu Government’s G.O. (Ms.) No. 286 (28.08.2018) discourages recovery in cases of bona fide mistakes post-retirement.
The respondents argued:
- The petitioner was factually ineligible for the higher pension as he did not complete 3 years in the Selection Grade.
- The error was not interpretational but a clear-cut case of ineligibility.
- Recovery was necessary to prevent unjust enrichment from public funds.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Upholds Right to Business, Orders Police Protection for Quarry Entrepreneur
Justice A.D. Maria Clete made the following key observations:
Mechanical Error, Not Interpretational
- The mistake was not subjective but based on an objective shortfall in service.
- The petitioner was never eligible for the higher pension under UGC norms.
No Prejudice Despite Lack of Notice
- While the absence of notice was a procedural lapse, it did not cause real prejudice since the facts were undisputed.
Distinction from Rafiq Masih & Thomas Daniel
- Unlike those cases, which involved hardship and prolonged payments, this case was about factual ineligibility.
- The protection against recovery did not apply here.
Reliance on Chandi Prasad Uniyal Case
- The Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand (2012) held that excess payments without legal authority must be recovered to prevent unjust enrichment.
- The court quoted:"Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships."
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the recovery. It ruled that since the excess payment stemmed from factual ineligibility, the principle of unjust enrichment applied, and the government was entitled to reclaim the amount.
Case Name: P. Ganga Parameshwaran vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
Case No.: W.P.(MD) No.14857 of 2016
Counsel for the Petitioner: M. Saravanan
Counsel for the Respondents: T. Amjad Khan, Government Advocate, K. Govindarajan, P. Aathimoola Pandian