Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S. KINAGI
J Keshavayya, S/o Jathi Krishna Bhat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka By Its Additional Chief Secretary To Government Education Department (Higher Education) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge denial of dearness allowance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court finds violation of natural justice. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. arguments on lack of notice for recovery. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 4. legal precedent supports petitioners' position. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court orders quashing of the impugned orders. (Para 12) |
ORDER :
ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.
1. The petitioners filed W.P.No.4256/2022, seeking the following reliefs:
i) Issue WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quashing Para 5 of the Impugned Government Order bearing No. ED 483 UNE 2017 dated 16.03.2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent (ANNEXURE D) in so far as it relates to denial of payment of arrears of Dearness Allowance amount from 01.01.2016, in so far as the Petitioners are concerned, holding the same as illegal, bad in law arbitrary one and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of justice and equity.
ii) Issue WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quashing the Impugned Letter bearing No.ED 19 UNE 2021 dated 21.10.2021 of the 1st Respondent (ANNEXURE E), & the Impugned Order bearing No. No. Ku. Vi/Maasani-1/2924/2021-22 dated 30.10.2021 passed by the 3rd Respondent (ANNEXURE - F) in so far as the Petitioners are conc
The court held that administrative recovery of overpaid amounts requires prior notice and adherence to principles of natural justice, affirming that arbitrary orders violate constitutional rights.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible if initiated five years after retirement, as established in Rafiq Masih's case.
It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitle....
Recoveries from retired employees based on erroneous salary payments are impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and judicial discretion in enforcing employee rights.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that recovery from retiral dues after retirement is impermissible in certain situations, and the protection of pension and gratuity rights of re....
The court established that the petitioners were entitled to the higher pay scale as per the Government Resolutions and that the recovery initiated by the respondents was unjust, illegal, and arbitrar....
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
