R. KANNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who was a Whole Time Member (Actuary) of the respondent no.2/Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, seeks quashing of the demand/recovery notice dated 18.2.2012 issued by the respondent no.2 for an amount of Rs. 30,84,355/ -. The demand/recovery notice was issued because as per the respondent no.2 the petitioner was not entitled to actuarial allowance of Rs. 65,000/ - per month from the date of his appointment on 18.12.2006 till it was paid for October 2010, and thus the total amount of Rs. 30,84,355/ - should not have been paid/granted to the petitioner as actuarial allowance.

(2.) THE petitioner argues before this Court that the petitioner was being paid in terms of the past practice whereby actuarial allowance was being paid to the Whole Time Members (Actuary) of the respondent no.2. Example is given of one Mr.P.A. Balasubramanian who was given such allowance as stated in the letter dated 26.2.2004 of the respondent no.2. The petitioner also relies upon the general circular dated 13.12.2005 issued by the respondent no.2 whereby the actuarial allowance was increased from a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - to a sum of Rs. 65,000/ - per month. It is further claimed that the petitioner having not stated any wrong facts and the petitioner having received the actuarial allowance in terms of the past precedent and the circular of the respondent no.2 dated 13.12.2005, the demand/recovery which is now sought to be made from the petitioner of the sum of Rs. 30,84,355/ - in terms of the impugned notice dated 18.2.2012 is illegal and liable to be quashed.

(3.) EVEN the appointment letter of the petitioner gives the petitioner a consolidated salary and this becomes clear from the office order of the respondent no.2 dated 09.1.2007, and which reads as under: -