Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT
Jamuna Nayak, W/o. Late G.S. Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to recover amount posthumously from widow. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. analysis of recovery posthumously is legally contentious. (Para 4 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. contention of petitioner regarding unjust recovery. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. supreme court guidelines on impermissible recovery. (Para 9 , 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. final order to refund amount to petitioner. (Para 12 , 21) |
Order :
Sachin Singh Rajput, J.
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :-
(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent concerned to refund recovered amount of Rs.83,432/- to the petitioner with interest.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may please also be granted.
2. Facts of the case, as reflected from the petition, are that the husband of the petitioner namely Mr. Gajendra Singh Naik, who was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Department of Health & Family Welfare and joined his duties on the said post on 11.06.1985, died during the course of employment on 09.01.2014. Pay scale of Late Gajedra Singh Naik was revised time to time by the comp
Recovery of excess payments from the widow of a Class-III employee post-mortem is impermissible under law, reaffirming the principle established in Rafiq Masih case.
Recoveries from retired Class-III employees post-payment are impermissible under established judicial principles.
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.
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....
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.
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
