Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M. S. KARNIK, NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
Maria Aura Pereira, w/o Cleto G. Pereira – Appellant
Versus
Registrar Administration High Court of Bombayat Goa, Penha De Franca, Porvorim, Bardez Goa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.)
1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith at the request and consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks direction to quash the letter dated 24.5.2024 accompanied by a letter dated 24.02.2024 by the Respondents, calling upon the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty thousand only) which was received by her as pensionary benefits under the head, General Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as “GPF”).
4. Briefly, the facts are that the Petitioner joined the service as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the District Court, North Goa, Panaji on 1.9.1991 and thereafter she was appointed as Stenographer (Higher Grade) in the High Court of Bombay at Goa by letter of appointment dated 24.06.1999. Subsequently, the petitioner served as a Personal Assistant to the Judge of the High Court of Bombay at Goa from 22.08.2019 till her voluntary retirement on 7.12.2021. The pay-scale associated with the position of Personal Assistant to the Judge of the High Court is as per the 7th pay commission matrix-level 10.
5. The petitioner re
Recovery of excess payments made to employees is permissible if an undertaking was signed, regardless of the employee's class, unless undue hardship is demonstrated.
The court established that recovery of excess payments from retired employees, particularly from lower service classes, is impermissible if it results in undue hardship, reinforcing the principles of....
The court ruled that recoveries from Group-C employees nearing retirement are impermissible, reaffirming protections established in Rafiq Masih.
Recovery of excess payments from Class-III employees is impermissible without misrepresentation, emphasizing the employer's responsibility for errors.
Recovery from retired employees is impermissible unless an undertaking was provided prior to retirement, and pay re-fixation cannot occur after a long time gap.
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
