பணி ஓய்வு பெற்ற பின் ஊதியம் அதிகமாக கொடுத்துவிட்டோம் திருப்பி கட்டு என்று கேட்க கூடாது; உயர்நீதிமன்ற தீர்ப்பு

              32 வருடங்களுக்கு பிறகு ஊதியம் அதிகமாக கொடுத்துவிட்டோம் திருப்பி கட்டு. கேட்ட Government Primary Health Centre,
             இல்லை கட்டவேண்டியதில்லை-உயர்நீதீமன்ற தீர்ப்பு.

                      தீர்ப்பின் விபரம் கீழே.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:    17.11.2011

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE  MR.JUSTICE   D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

Writ  Petition No.13997 of 2011


P.K.Kannammal ..  Petitioner

-Vs-

1. The Block Medical Officer,
Government Primary Health Centre,
Kannankurichi,
Salem-636 001.

2. The Deputy Director of Health
Services,
Salem.

3. The Accountant General,
O/o. The Accountant General (A & E),
Chennai.

4. The Director,
Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
Teynampet,
Chennai-4.  ..  Respondents


Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  praying this Honourable Court to  issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order made in R.No.715/2009/PH dated 23.10.2009 and R.No.716/PH/2009 dated 10.12.2010 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to refund the recovered sum of Rs.85,608/- with interest at the rate of 12% to the petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Court.

For  petitioner    :     Mr.N.Manokaran
For  Respondents:     Mr.R.M.Muthukumar
     Government Advocate



ORDER

    The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the orders made in R.No.715/2009/PH dated 23.10.2009 and R.No.716/PH/2009 dated 10.12.2010 passed by the 1st respondent, quash the same and consequently  to direct the respondents to refund the recovered sum of Rs.85,608/- (Rupees eighty five thousand six hundred and eight only) with interest at the rate of 12%    per annum to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Malaria Field Worker on 7.10.1969.   She retired from service on 31.10.2009 on reaching the age of superannuation.    By proceedings dated 19.11.1978 of the District Health Officer, Salem, the petitioner was regularised with effect from 7.10.1969 and  the benefits were paid.   While so, after retirement, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 10.12.2010 stating that as per the order dated 4.8.1998 of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Salem, the petitioner was regularised only from 19.4.1977 and therefore excess payment to the tune of Rs.85,608/- (Rupees eighty five thousand six hundred and eight only) was paid from 7.10.1969 to 31.10.2009 and sought to recover the said amount from the  terminal benefits.   Hence the writ petition has been filed to quash the aforesaid impugned order dated 10.12.2010.
    3.  Heard both  sides.

  4.  The impugned orders were admittedly passed without hearing the petitioner.    It is well settled that no adverse order resulting in civil consequences could be passed against a person without hearing the person concerned.

   5.  Furthermore, when the petitioner was regularised with effect from  7.10.1969 by order dated 19.11.1978 of the District Health Officer, Salem and the monetary benefits were paid  thirty two years back, the same could not be recovered, that too, after the retirement.



6.   It is not known as to why the recovery proceedings was not initiated when the order dated 4.8.1998 of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Salem was passed regularising the services of the petitioner from 19.4.1977 instead of  7.10.1969.

7.  A  Division Bench of this Court in the decision in PALAVESAMUTHU, D.  v. TAMIL NADU ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (2006) 1  M.L.J. 143) has held that recovery could not be made for the alleged excess amount paid during the service after the person was retired.   Paragraph No.6 of the said  decision is relevant and the same is extracted below:-

        "6 ...  We are of the view that the course and  method adopted by the Tribunal cannot be appreciated in the case of the petitioner.   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."

         8. More particularly,  it is not the case of the respondents that the alleged excess amount was paid pursuant to any misrepresentation  of the petitioner.

       9.  For the aforesaid reasons,  the impugned orders dated  23.10.2009 and 10.12.2010, passed by the first respondent, are quashed.

           10.  Accordingly,  the writ  petition  is  allowed.   No  costs.







vks

Copy to:-

1.The Block Medical Officer,
Government Primary Health Centre,
Kannankurichi,
Salem-636 001.

2. The Deputy Director of Health
Services,
Salem.

3. The Accountant General,
O/o. The Accountant General (A & E),
Chennai.

4. The Director,
Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
Teynampet,
Chennai 4