Back
A. S. SUPEHIA, MAUNA M. BHATT
Chairman, Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board – Appellant
Versus
N. N. Patel – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Admit, learned advocate, Ms.Ashlesh M. Patel waives service of notice of admission.
2. The present appeal emanates from the judgment dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition whereby the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and set aside the recovery of gratuity amount initiated by the respondent – Board.
3. The facts which are not dispute and as recorded by the learned Single Judge are that the respondent employees were serving under the appellant – Corporation and have retired between 01.01.2016 and 28.03.2018 and/or legal heirs of such employees who have expired during such period, are subjected to recovery of amount of excess payment of gratuity by the action of the appellant. It is case of the appellants that such employees were by mistake paid an increased amount of gratuity and when the appellant realized that it was by mistake and on instructions of the State Government, it initiated action for recovery of excess payment of gratuity and such action has been set aside by the learned Single Judge by placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State
Recovery of gratuity from retired employees is impermissible under the Payment of Gratuity Act when payments were made mistakenly.
Recovery from retired employees is impermissible when excess payments were made without misrepresentation, as per established legal precedents.
Recovery of excess payments from employees without their fault violates principles of equity and fairness, especially when recovery occurs post-retirement and after a significant period.
Point of Law : Relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that wi....
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....
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.
Recoveries from retired employees based on erroneous salary payments are impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and judicial discretion in enforcing employee rights.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible if it causes undue hardship, as established in judicial precedents.
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
