Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI, CHALLA GUNARANJAN
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Khadar Khan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard, Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) in OA No.643 of 2015, by which the OA filed by the applicant/respondent No.1 herein was disposed of with directions.
3. The applicant/respondent No.1 was initially appointed as a temporary typist in BZA Vijayawada Division in the pay scale of Rs.260-400 and was directed to report under the Railway Electrification Projects Organization. While working in the said organisation, he was promoted as Senior Typist and Head Typist purely on ad hoc basis on 17.06.2000 and 05.07.2007, respectively which was not based on seniority and other relevant criteria for promotion. He was repatriated to his parent division on 09.09.2008. His pay on repatriation continued as same as was on deputation. The respondents in OA (petitioners herein), based on Circular No.54/2014 dated 19.05.2014, that an ad hoc promotion granted in ex
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees, or employees due to retire within one year, is impermissible under established legal principles.
Employees are entitled to pay protection on transfer even if the probation period is not completed, and pay reductions without notice violate natural justice.
Promotion rights must adhere to existing regulations governing increments and positions. Regularization after ad-hoc roles is contingent upon verified policies.
Recovery of excess payments made to employees is impermissible where no fault exists on the employee's part and payments have spanned over five years, protecting livelihood rights.
Recovery of excess salary after retirement is impermissible unless caused by employee misconduct; employed principles from prior Apex Court rulings.
An employee cannot seek to overturn a recovery from dues if they knowingly provided consent for the recovery and were involved in the pay fixation process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
