Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Manish Kumar Vyas s/o Shri Jai Prakash Vyas – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
(A) That, the part of notification dated 13.02.2009 (Annex.P/1) “in such cases the excess amount of pay and allowances already drawn on account of fixation of pay under these Rules shall be deposited by the concerned incumbent in lump sum” may kindly be declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and be set-aside.
(B) That, Respondents may kindly be restrained from effecting any recovery from Petitioner in pursuance of order dated 13.04.2009 (Annex.P/3) and 20.05.2009 (Annex.P/5).
(C) That, consequent to aforesaid it may kindly be directed that Petitioner is entitled to be fixed at a stage of Rs.12500/-w.e.f. 15.04.2009.
(D) That, Respondents may further be directed to pay to the petitioner the amount deducted from his arrears.
(E) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may kindly be granted in favor of the petitioner;
(F) Cost of the writ
The notification requiring recovery of excess pay under the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules is constitutional and does not violate Article 14.
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.
The court upheld the authority's reduction of the petitioner's pay due to prior erroneous fixation, confirming compliance with the Central Civil Services Rules while quashing the recovery order.
The court established that the petitioners were entitled to the higher pay scale as per the Government Resolutions and that the recovery initiated by the respondents was unjust, illegal, and arbitrar....
The court ruled against arbitrary recovery of excess salary, emphasizing protections for employees and the necessity for compliance with procedural justice.
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible if there is no misrepresentation or suppression of facts, especially when nearing retirement.
The arbitrary introduction of a cut-off date affecting an employee's entitlement to a promotional pay scale was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Service Law - Scale of pay - In view of amendment of ROP,1999 by Fifth Amendment insofar as our case is concerned, this subsequent amendment under Eighteenth Amendment Rules did not have any further ....
The court established that employees are entitled to benefits under the Revised Pay Scale Rules from the date of their appointment, and any denial based on administrative inefficiencies or financial ....
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
