P. KUMUDAM Vs. THE BRANCH OFFICER AND ANOTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of recovery imposed on the writ petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was employed as Nursing Superintendent Grade III and allowed to retire from service on 30.04.2007, on attaining the age of superannuation. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner further states that the pension was fixed to the writ petitioner based on his last pay drawn and in accordance with the Government orders and pay rules in force. There was no misrepresentation or otherwise on the part of the writ petitioner with regard to the fixation of pension. The pension was fixed by the respondents with reference to the Government orders in this regard. After five years from the date of retirement, the impugned order of recovery has been issued to the writ petitioner by stating that there was an audit objection in respect of the fixation of pension and the excess amount was paid to the writ petitioner. Challenging the order of recovery, the present writ petition filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that a show cause notice had been issued to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner had submitted his explanation stating that he has not committed any act of misrepresentation at the time of fixation of his pension. Further, the order of recovery has been imposed after a lapse of five years from the date of retirement and therefore, the recovery cannot be imposed.