EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. K.KARUPPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.S.Dhayalan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The order impugned in the writ petition is the order of recovery from the salary of the respondent/writ petitioner, on the ground that excess payment has been made.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that at the time when the payments were effected, the respondent had executed an undertaking dated 30.04.1998, wherein, it is stated that if any excess payment may be found to have been made as a result of incorrect fixation of pay or any excess payment detected in the light of discrepancies noticed subsequently will be refunded to the Government either by adjustment against future payments due to him or otherwise. The fixation was done in the year 1998. The respondent had attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.06.2009. On that stage, the impugned proceedings came to be passed. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, any wrong/excess payment on account of incorrect fixation is required to be revised by the concerned employor and more so, the petitioner has exercised option under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Pension Revised Pay Rule. It is worthwhile to refer a decision made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh reported in 2016 Writ L.R. 1030. The relevant paragraph of the decision is as follows: