NELSON SAILO
Remlalnghaka – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram – Respondent
Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Govt. Advocate who appears for all the respondents. The writ petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer:-
K.S.B. Ali -Vs- State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2018) 11 SCC 277
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. -Vs- The Chief Election Commissioner
State of Punjab-Vs-Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334
State of Uttaranchal & Anr. -Vs- Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors.(2011) 8 SCC 670
The impugned Office Memorandum did not comply with the mandatory legal requirements and the recovery sought from the petitioners for excess drawal of pay was not permissible in law.
The court emphasized that recovery of excess payments from Group-D employees is impermissible, and actions taken without due process violate principles of natural justice.
The recovery of excess payment made to pensioners after retirement would be impermissible if it would be iniquitous, harsh, or arbitrary. Additionally, a circular issued by an officer of the State mo....
The recovery of excess salary payments must adhere to regulatory frameworks and principles of natural justice; undue hardship on the employee must be avoided.
Recovery of excess payments from employees in Class-III and Class-IV services is impermissible, especially when the excess has been enjoyed for over five years.
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible if there is no misrepresentation or suppression of facts, especially when nearing retirement.
Recovery of excess payments from Group-C employees beyond five years is impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and adherence to Supreme Court guidelines.
Recovery of excess payments from employees in Group-C service is impermissible after five years, emphasizing fairness and justice in employment matters.
Post-retirement recovery of advance increments for higher qualifications from pre-1992 in-service employees invalid absent fraud; limited to 24 months pre-retirement; quashed OM cannot justify deduct....
The statutory force of rules, impermissibility of creating two classes of pensioners, and the discriminatory nature of the classification were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.