R SUBRAMANIAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was retired as Block Development Officer and he retired from service on 30.06.1988 on reaching the age of superannuation. He was paid pension.

(2.) AFTER 13 years, all of a sudden, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 23.08.2001, on the ground that there was some wrong fixation made in the fixation of pay and therefore, the pension has to be revised from 01.07.1998 onwards. The impugned order states that the excess amount of Rs.42,604/- was paid during 13 years. The impugned order was passed for recovery of Rs.42,604/-. The Petitioner has filed O.A.No,646 of 2002 (W.P.No,8312 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order is cryptic without any reasons. It is not stated as to how the mistake, if any crept in. In any event, the learned counsel submits that the fixation of pay before his retirement in the year 1988 was done by the department. No higher fixation was made at his instance. The fixation of pay by way of revision was not due to any misrepresentation from the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if there is any mistake by way of revision of pay, no recovery could be made from the pension.