Back
HE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUM
Union Of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Devi @ Lakhimi Devi W/O Late Bul Barthakur – Respondent
ORDER :
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned CGC for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka and Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsels for the writ petitioners. Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel appears for the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).
2. The review petitioners’ counsel submits that the impugned judgment and order dated 13.09.2022 passed in WP(C) 258/2022 and the other 7 writ petitions should be reviewed, inasmuch as, this Court had allowed the writ petitions by holding that there could not be a recovery of any excess payment of salary made to the writ petitioners, as they were holding Class-III (Group-C) post, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.
3. The review petitioners’ counsel submits that when going into the Pay Scale enjoyed by the writ petitioners and the Grade Pay being given to them, it is clear that the writ petitioners were holding Group-B posts and not Group-C posts. He also submits that while there had been wrong fixation of pay of the writ petitioners as far back as
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.
Recovery of excess payment from employees must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot be made after an unreasonable delay, especially for Class-3 employees.
Recoveries from retired employees based on erroneous salary payments are impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and judicial discretion in enforcing employee rights.
Excess payments made to employees without fault or misrepresentation cannot be recovered, especially after significant time has elapsed.
Recovery of excess salary is iniquitous if made after five years, violating constitutional principles.
An employee cannot seek to overturn a recovery from dues if they knowingly provided consent for the recovery and were involved in the pay fixation process.
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
