Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (KOHIMA BENCH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
O. Moa Imsong – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland, Represented By The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Nagaland – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's appointment and service details. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on service duration and recovery. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's reasoning on service and pension rights. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final ruling on payment and pension entitlement. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
The approach to the writ court under Article 266 of the Constitution of India has been made with the following prayer:
“In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue Rule calling upon the respondents to how cause/causes as to why a writ of Certiorari and/or Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or direction should not be granted and upon cause or causes being shown be pleased to make the Rule absolute in the following terms:
A. Quash and set aside the Order No. DYRS/ESTT-23/2023/962 dated 29.9.2023 (ANNEXURE-10) whereby it was ordered that the pay for 16 months overstayed by the petitioner is to be refunded by the petitioner either in lump sum or deducted from his pension gratuity.
B. Direct the State respondents to refund/pay the petitioner the amount of Rs. 9,7
Recovery of salary from employees who rendered service beyond retirement age is impermissible unless justified under specific legal principles outlined in relevant case law.
Recovery from pensionary benefits is impermissible when the employee has rendered service during the overstayed period without prior notice of the excess payments to be recovered.
Recovery of excess salary from a retired employee is impermissible when no fraud is established, and the employee worked without objection for an extended period.
Recovery of excess payments is impermissible if it causes undue hardship, especially when no fraud is involved.
Recovery from the salaries for the period of overstay was unjustified due to the petitioners' good faith service and the authorities' failure to detect discrepancies in their dates of birth.
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.
Recovery of excess payments from pensioners is impermissible without fraud or misrepresentation; pension is a right, not a bounty.
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
