Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Hariram Meena, son of Shri Purnaram Meena – Appellant
Versus
Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, through its' Chairman cum Managing Director – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's grievance regarding gratuity deduction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's review of parties' submissions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. parameters for equitable recovery decisions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's view on arbitrary recovery after long duration. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. judgment on legal obligation to refund. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. writ petition allowed and orders for refund. (Para 11 , 12) |
Order :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. By way of filing this S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality of the impugned letters dated 31.03.2015 and 07.07.2014 issued by the officials of Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, whereby an amount of Rs. 2,08,517/- has been deducted from the petitioner’s gratuity towards alleged excess payment on account of wrong pay fixation. The grievance of the petitioner is that such recovery is wholly arbitrary and illegal, and therefore, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned communications and a direction to the respondent-authorities to release the deducted gratuity amount along with applicable interest.
2. That the petitioner, a permanent resident of District Churu, was appointed on muster-roll basis i
Recovery of excess payments from employees without their fault violates principles of equity and fairness, especially when recovery occurs post-retirement and after a significant period.
Recovery of excess payments from employees must consider the impact on individuals, particularly retirees, and may be deemed iniquitous if it leads to hardship.
Point of Law : Relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that wi....
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 pay from Class VI retiree's gratuity/leave encashment impermissible if due to departmental error over 5+ years, no fraud by employee, beyond 24-month regulatory limit, causing hard....
The court established that recovery of excess payments from retired employees, particularly from lower service classes, is impermissible if it results in undue hardship, reinforcing the principles of....
Recovery of excess payments from retirees or without due process breaches principles of natural justice, violating Articles 14, 16, and 300-A of the Constitution.
Recoveries from retired employees based on erroneous salary payments are impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and judicial discretion in enforcing employee rights.
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
