Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, CHALLA GUNARANJAN
Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada – Appellant
Versus
P.M. Babji – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, for the petitioners and Sri B. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, appearing through virtual mode.
2. The respondent - P.M. Babji was the applicant in O.A.No.2401 of 2017 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’). The petitioners were the respondents therein.
3. The respondent herein shall be referred to as the ‘applicant’ and the petitioners as ‘petitioners’.
4. The applicant joined in service as Police Constable on 13.07.1984. He submitted his resignation which was accepted with effect from 08.11.1994 by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. Subsequently, he made a representation to the Government in the year 1998 and accepting the request as per the representation, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2396, Home (Police-D) Department, dated 30.11.1998 and permitted the applicant to withdraw his resignation on humanitarian grounds as a special case and directed for his reappointment as Police Constable subject to Rule 30 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (in short ‘Rules 1996’). At
Excess payments made due to erroneous salary fixation cannot be recovered from an employee if based on mistake without fraud; recovery post-retirement within a year is inequitable.
Excess payments made to employees without fault or misrepresentation cannot be recovered, especially after significant time has elapsed.
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.
Recoveries from retired employees based on erroneous salary payments are impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and judicial discretion in enforcing employee rights.
Recovery of excess salary cannot be enforced without prior hearing, especially when no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee is established.
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
