Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
Dharmalingam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for quashing recovery orders (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal argument against recovery post-retirement (Para 3) |
| 3. court’s interim relief and representation process (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. dismissal of petition with observations (Para 7) |
1. Vide present petition, quashing of orders dated 11.06.2021 and March, 2022 (undated) issued by the respondents is sought.
2. The petitioner had joined the service of CRPF on 24.12.1994 on the post of ASI/and he retired on 31.05.2018, being posted in 239 Bn CRPF. According to petitioner, vide impugned communication dated 11.06.2021, he has been informed that during his service, amount to the tune of Rs.2,47,313/- has been paid in excess by the respondent and he has been directed to deposit the same with the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that recovery of excess paid amount cannot be made in peculiar circumstances like when the employee has retired or is on the verge of retirement. It is submitted that the petitioner has already retired on 31.05.2018 and the recovery vide impugned communications has been directed after a lap
Recovery of excess payment from retired employees is restricted under exceptional circumstances, especially after a significant time lapse.
Recovery of excess payments from retired Class-IV employees is impermissible without due process and violates principles of natural justice.
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
