Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Abdus Sobur Prodhani S/o Late Abdul Wahab Prodhani – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I have also heard Mr. R.K. Talukdar, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and Mrs. A. Talukdar, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Grade-IV employee in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Hatsingimari, vide Order No. HSM/E-4/83/183 dated 10.04.1986. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner had joined his service on 10.04.1986. By another order bearing No. HSM/E-4/83/171 dated 25.06.1986, the petitioner was allowed to work as Grade-IV employee in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, (Civil), Hatsingimari. In the year, 1989, the petitioner was promoted as Process Server. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner had retired from his services as Jarikarak from Tahsil Office, South Salmara on 30.06.2017. Upon retirement from his service, the petitioner received the amount from his G.P.F. account a
Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, is impermissible in law.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible without adherence to natural justice, especially when payments were made for an extended period without notice.
Recovery of excess payments impermissible from retired employees absent fraud or misrepresentation, especially near retirement and over long service; pension re-fixation allowed prospectively without....
Recovery of excess pension payments from a retiree is impermissible when the overpayment resulted from a bona fide administrative error by the state, rather than through misrepresentation or fraud by....
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
