Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Dinesh Vyas S/o Shri S.N. Vyas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Finance Department – Respondent
ORDER :
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 02.07.2018 (Annex.5), 30.01.2019 (Annex.6) and 13.07.2022 (Annex.7), whereby, the pay fixation of the petitioner has been revised and recovery order has been issued.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioner after rendering the service in the respondent- department retired from the post of Deputy Director. After his retirement, the respondents granted him promotion on the post of Joint Director (Agriculture/Water Shed Development and Soil Conversation Department) w.e.f. 2008-2009. The pay fixation orders were issued and the petitioner was getting the monthly pension on the PPO issued by the respondents. The respondents recalled the order of promotion issued to the petitioner on the post of Joint Director on account of the fact that there was no vacant post of Joint Director in the year 2008-2009. As the promotion order of the petitioner was withdrawn, therefore, the respondents have issued an order dated 30.01.2019 for re-fixation of pay of the petitioner and recovery thereafter. As a consequence, a revised P
Excess payments made without misrepresentation cannot be recovered; withdrawal of promotion requires due process and opportunity to be heard.
Erroneous fixation of pay or pension can be corrected, but recovery after retirement causing hardship is not sustainable without evidence of misrepresentation or written undertakings.
Recovery of excess salary after retirement is impermissible unless caused by employee misconduct; employed principles from prior Apex Court rulings.
Recovery of salary without notice violates natural justice principles; promotion by employer cannot be reversed without due process.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees, or employees due to retire within one year, is impermissible under established legal principles.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and seniority cannot be granted retrospectively when an employee was not born....
Redeployment to a post with identical pay scale does not constitute promotion, and excess personal pay need not be recovered from the retired employee.
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
