THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.25373 of 2011 September 13, 2011 Between: K.Kamalamma, W/o.K.John (Late) ... Petitioner And The Accountant General, A.P., Hyderabad And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.25373 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner herein filed the original application being O.A.No.3885 of 2005 assailing the memo dated 08.1.2007 of the second respondent whereby and whereunder the third respondent was directed to recover the excess amount of family pension paid to the petitioner. The learned Tribunal relying on Rule 7(1) and Rule 50(6)(a) and (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (the Rules) dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved by the said order dated 23.9.2010, after lapse of one year, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner is the wife of a Government employee, K.John. After his death, the petitioner was paid family pension with effect from 15.7.1967. The son of John through his first wife was entitled for a share in the family pension upto the age of 25 years i.e., upto 01.8.1977. However, full share of the pension was paid instead of half share for the period from 01.12.1989 to 31.12.2006. This was pointed out by the Deputy Director, Internal Audit, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat whereafter the second respondent directed the third respondent to issue the memo for recovery of excess family pension paid to petitioner, which was assailed before the learned Tribunal. Two grounds were urged before the Tribunal, namely, the memo impugned is illegal and that it is violative of principles of natural justice. Rule 7(1) of the Rules provides that a Government employee shall not earn two pensions in the same service or post at the same time or by same continuous service. As per Rule 50(6)(a) and (b) of the Rules, family pension is payable in equal shares to the widows and where the pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the pensioner. Therefore, the drawal of full pension by the petitioner from 01.12.1989 to 31.12.2006 is irregular. The submission that natural justice violated is misconceived. The principles of natural justice would be attracted only when an administrative decision results in civil consequences. If a person illegally gains some benefit and the same was directed to be returned, it does not result in civil consequences, and to rules of natural justice stands excluded. Further, as seen from the memo dated 28.5.2007 issued by the third respondent, the petitioner and her stepson were informed about the recovery of the pension when they statedly agreed to deposit excess pension drawn. This is, however, denied by the petitioner. The silence on the part of the petitioner after receiving the memo issued by the third respondent would lead to inference that she was put on notice by the third respondent. After dictation of the order, the Counsel for the petitioner placed before this Court the decision in Sahib Ram v State of Haryana[1] to contend that if any amount is paid in excess due to wrong calculation, the same cannot be permitted to be recovered. We have perused the decision. It does not lay down any general principle to lend support to the contention. The second respondent directed the third respondent to recover the excess pension paid to which she was not entitled to as per Rule 50(6)(a) & (b) of the Rules. In the result, for the above reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) September 13, 2011 YS [1] 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18