Back
SABINA, SATYEN VAIDYA
State of H. P. – Appellant
Versus
B. R. Chauhan (since deceased) through his LRs Kumari Shilpa Chauhan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
[Satyen Vaidya, J.]
1. Heard.
2. By way of instant Letters Patent Appeal, appellants have assailed judgment dated 24.5.2011, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 12583 of 2008.
3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that the appellants vide memorandum dated 4.12.2004, Annexure PA with Writ record, required the predecessor in interest of respondents herein (for short ‘original respondent’) to show cause as to why his salary be not re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and recoveries, as mentioned in the memorandum under reference, be not affected from him. Aggrieved against aforesaid memorandum dated 4.12.2004, original respondent approached the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing OA(M) 58 of 2005, which, on abolition of the Tribunal came to be listed before this Court as CWP(T) 12583 of 2008.
4. Noticeably, filing of OA(M) 58 of 2005 was the second round of litigation initiated by the original respondent on substantially identical cause. It will be relevant to notice the factual back ground in which original respondent had to seek legal remedy in the first instance and thereafter to approach the Tribunal by way of OA(M) 58 of 2005 for the sec
It is admitted position from the pleadings and it has been fairly and squarely admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that no show cause notice was given to the applicant before reducing....
The court upheld the re-fixation of pay and set aside the recovery of excess payments, affirming the validity of the Government Resolution affecting pay-scales.
The binding nature of an employee's undertaking regarding the recovery of excess pay and the authority of competent authorities to re-fix pay scale based on applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders....
The existing basic pay as on 01.01.2006 is the pay drawn in the prescribed existing scale of pay and that it can only be interpreted as the pay applicable to the post payable to the Government servan....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of pay scale to the writ petitioners was in accordance with the state policy, and the withdrawal of the pay scale by the appellant a....
The court established that due process must be followed in altering pay-scales, particularly regarding recovery of payments made in error, emphasizing employee rights post-retirement.
Similarly situated employees entitled to uniform notional pay fixation from 01.01.1996 under 5th CPC anomaly rectification, with actual benefits from 21.04.2004; prior judgments in rem mandate parity....
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
