Facts
The Block Educational Officer found an error in the respondent’s pay fixation, re-fixed her pay by proceedings dated 11 October 2021, and ordered recovery of ₹2,75,359 in excess payments.
Source reference: p. 2The respondent challenged those proceedings in W.P. No. 1212 of 2022. The Writ Court quashed the proceedings and directed restoration of the original pay fixation.
Source reference: p. 2The State appealed.
Source reference: p. 2During the appeal, the respondent, due to retire on 31 December 2026, undertook to repay ₹2,75,359 within one month and requested that her pension proposal be processed on the basis of the revised pay fixation.
Source reference: pp. 2–3Issues
Whether the competent authorities could correct an erroneous pay fixation and recover the excess payment
Source reference: p. 2Whether, in light of the respondent’s undertaking to repay the quantified excess, the Writ Court’s order should be set aside and her pension proposal processed on the revised pay basis
Source reference: pp. 3–4Law Applied
The Court stated that competent authorities may correct an error in pay fixation at any time, and that an employee is not entitled to retain excess salary received because of an erroneous fixation, as doing so would result in unjust gain and financial loss to the State Exchequer.
Source reference: p. 2The Court also stated that re-fixation of pay must be approved. The judgment cited no statute or precedent.
Source reference: pp. 2–4Reasoning
The Court treated the respondent’s affidavit undertaking to repay ₹2,75,359 within one month as material to resolving the appeal.
Source reference: pp. 3–4In light of that undertaking, it set aside the Writ Court’s order, leaving the revised pay fixation in place for the purpose of processing the respondent’s pension proposal.
Source reference: pp. 3–4It directed the State to submit that proposal expeditiously, subject to there being no other impediment.
Source reference: pp. 3–4Holding
The appeal was allowed, and the Writ Court’s order dated 2 July 2024 was set aside.
The respondent’s undertaking to repay ₹2,75,359 within one month was accepted.
Source reference: p. 4The appellants were directed to submit her pension proposal as expeditiously as possible, provided there were no other impediments.
Source reference: p. 4No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
The Government of Tamil NaduvsK.Thangam
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
