M.JANAKI Vs. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a family pensioner. The husband of the writ petitioner Sri.K.Muniappan was employed as Selection Grade Lecturer in H.H.Rajas College, Pudukkottai and he died on 29.01.2008. Thereafter, the writ petitioner is receiving family pension as per the orders passed by the respondents. There was no misrepresentation or otherwise on the part of the writ petitioner as she was not aware of the fixation of pension as well as family pension done at the instance of the Establishment Section of the respondents. However, the impugned order, in proceedings dated 09.12.2015, is passed based on the audit objection that an excess payment was made to the writ petitioner on account of erroneous fixation of pay to the husband of the writ petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that no notice or opportunity was given to the writ petitioner before passing the impugned order.

(3.) This Court is of the considered opinion that any order affecting the service rights and monetary benefits of an employee is to be passed only after providing an opportunity to the employee concerned. Thus, the impugned order in the present case on hand is in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the pension is to be paid in accordance with the Pay Rules and Government Orders in force. Excess payment cannot be made to the pensioner or family pensioner. In this regard, the authorities concerned are bound to correct the revision of pension as well as the family pension and pay the correct family pension as applicable to the writ petitioner in accordance with the Government Orders and Pay Rules in force.