CATHERINE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of 5th respondent in proceedings dated 20.09.2010 is sought to be quashed.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is a family pensioner and her husband Late Thiru Razario was appointed as Professor in English and Head of the Department and retired from service on 13.06.1977. The family pension was refixed based on the Government Orders as applicable to the writ petitioner. Suddenly, an order of recovery was issued in proceedings dated 20.09.2010, imposing the recovery of Rs.1,76,017/-, stating that an excess amount of family pension was paid to the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that no notice or opportunity was given to the writ petitioner even to submit her explanation/objection. Thus, the order impugned is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, the petitioner states that even at the time of filing of the writ petition, she was 74 years old and now she would be about 82 years. Thus, recovery at this age will certainly affect the livelihood of the writ petitioner, since the petitioner has made out the medical expenses which is huge in nature.

(3.) The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed the contention by stating that the order of recovery was imposed based on the audit objection and the excess amount is sought to be recovered. The authorities competent are entitled to correct the mistakes if any occurred at the time of re-fixation of pension and therefore, the recovery is in accordance with the Government Orders in force. The learned Additional Government Pleader is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in respect of the impugned order of recovery issued against the writ petitioner.