Back
SATYEN VAIDYA
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:
(ii) That the pay of the applicant be fixed at Rs. 15,160 as on 15.9.2016 instead of Rs. 14,320.
(iii) That the respondents may further be directed to grant pay band i.e. 10300+34500+3200 Grade Pay w.e.f. 15.9.2013.
(iv) That the respondents may be further directed to grant the applicant actual consequential financial benefits on annual increments from date of promotion i.e. 15.9.2011 in place of notional benefits.
(v) That the order of recovery issued by respondent No. 3 be quashed and set aside”
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case arethat the petitioner was initially appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in the year 1996. He was converted into whole time contingent worker in June, 2000. The services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 31.10.2000 as Class-IV. During his service as Class-IV, petitioner improved his qualification and passed 10
Couty of the considered view that the impugned order dated 27.11.2017 is wrong, illegal and arbitrary, as it does not have the backing of any rule or applicable service condition behind it.
Except for withholding of annual increments till lapse of one year after qualification of typing test by petitioner, respondents had no right to reduce or re-fix his pay, as has been done by way of i....
Junior's pay under revised rules with 15% enhancement cannot exceed senior's; refixation at par upheld if due to incorrect option, but excess recovery quashed if departmental error.
Higher pay scale entitlement for promoted clerks arises after two years regular service from promotion date, not linked to typing test passage unless explicitly stated in promotion order.
The court established that the increments earned during a penalty period must be restored upon its expiry when the penalty order specifies no postponement of future increments.
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.
Retirement - Re-fixation of pay - No justification in re-fixing pay of petitioner after his retirement and to recover excess amount allegedly paid to him from 1.1.2008 onwards from his terminal benef....
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
