Back
NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI
B. L. Chouhan, S/o. Late A. K. Chouhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Water Resources – Respondent
ORDER :
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.)
1. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard the matter finally at motion stage.
2. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the recovery order dated 24-1-2019 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 2 for recovery of excess payment Rs. 60,902/-.
3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, petitioner was working on the post of Executive Engineer under respondent No. 2 and he retired from service on 30-11-2011. After his retirement, he has been granted 100% pension, but only 90% gratuity has been granted and 10% gratuity has been withheld without any proper reason, whereas, in the year 2016, respondent No. 1 has issued ‘No demand, No Enquiry’ certificate and respondent No. 2 has also informed respondent No. 3 (Annexure P-4) that, no inquiry or criminal case or any recovery proceeding is pending against him. The petitioner submitted representation for releasing 10% gratuity payment to him, thereafter, respondent No. 3 made some queries from respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-5 dated 20-6-2017, with regard to payment of Kramonnat Vetanman and determination of pay fixation. Respo
Recovery of excess payment from retired employees is impermissible after five years unless a valid undertaking exists; arbitrary recovery orders are quashed.
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible when no fault or misrepresentation is established on their part.
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
