VASANTHA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was allowed to retire from the service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.06.2000. Till the petitioner was in service, the respondents never thought of working out the accounts of the petitioner. Only three years from the date of retirement, namely, on 25.06.2003, the recover order came to be passed seeking to recover the petitioner's gratuity and pension, which are explicitly barred by Section 60(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) IN reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner though retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.06.2000, he has already given a statement that if his revision of scale of pay is found fixed wrongly, the same could be recovered from the petitioner. Only on that basis, the impugned recovery order came to be passed on 25.06.2003. Again, it was submitted that the recovery order had already given effect to. Therefore, if the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned recovery order, the same will cause great prejudice to the respondents department.

(3.) IN result, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.