HARISH KUMAR
Ram Lakhan Singh, Son of Late Mukti Nath Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Eastern Central Railway Hazipur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harish Kumar, J.
Heard Mr. Ram Chandra Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, learned Sr. CGC along with Dr. Priya Gupta, learned Advocates for the Union of India.
2. The petitioner superannuated on 30.11.2018 from the post of Sub-Inspector, Security Control, Railway Protection, Danapur, Eastern Central Railway has invoked the prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
Akhilanand Upadhyay Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2010(4) PLJR 854
Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bhadur (2000) 10 SCC 99 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 394
Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India (2006) 11 SCC 709 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 529
Dashrath Singh Vs. The Accountant General, Bihar & Ors.
ITC Limited vs State Of U.P. & Ors
Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh (2006) 8 SCC 647 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 16
Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar (2006) 11 SCC 492 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 508
Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121
State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others
Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors
Union of India & Others Vs. Bhanwar Lal Mundan
Union of India v. M. Bhaskar (1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967
V. Gangaram v. Director (1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible without adherence to natural justice, especially when payments were made for an extended period without notice.
Recovery of excess salary cannot be enforced without prior hearing, especially when no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee is established.
No disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, withholding of retirement benefits under the guise of the impugned Memo is unjust, arbitrary.
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.
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.
Any amount paid/received without the authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on....
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible if it causes undue hardship, necessitating prior notice and opportunity for response before recovery.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.