Back
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, PARTHA SARTHY
Life Insurance Corporation of India through the Chairman having its Central Office at Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai – Appellant
Versus
Alok Kumar Jha S/o Ganga Nath Jha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.,
The appellant is the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for brevity ‘Corporation’) aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which allowed the writ petition filed by the party-respondents herein; to the extent of restraining the Corporation from recovering amounts as per the impugned letter dated 06.01.2017, which was a consequence of rationalisation of pay fixation of ex-servicemen, arising from the guidelines issued by the Government of India.
2. The learned Single Judge clearly found that the guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 17.02.2014 applicable to the public sector insurance companies, was not challenged in the writ petition and only the consequential pay fixation under the impugned order was challenged. While declining to interfere with the pay fixation, as noticed above, the Respondent-Corporation was restrained from making any recovery by reason of such pay fixation.
3. The appeal was filed with a delay of 84 days and we heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation on merits.
4. The learned Counsel for the Corporation pointed out that the guidelines specifically related to ex-servicemen re-employed
Employees cannot be required to refund salaries disbursed based on valid pay fixation, as it is not their fault if the Corporation later rationalizes pay.
The court established that re-fixation of pay for re-employed ex-servicemen must be prospective and prohibits recovery of previously overpaid amounts based on erroneous interpretations.
The court emphasized that retrospective deductions for re-fixation of pay are not permissible when based on erroneous salary calculations involving components like Military Service Pay.
The court affirmed that recovery of excess pay based on an erroneous inclusion of Military Service Pay is unjustified, emphasizing adherence to proper guidelines for pay fixation.
Recovery of excess salary cannot be enforced without prior hearing, especially when no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee is established.
Recovery of excess payment from a retired employee should not be allowed, especially in the absence of misrepresentation, as it would result in hardship. Any order affecting the right of an employee ....
Recovery of excess salary from retired employees, particularly Class III and IV, is impermissible post-retirement, especially without notice, as held in established case law.
Withholding gratuity post-retirement without notice or opportunity to contest alleged incorrect pay fixation is impermissible and deemed harsh.
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
