Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Amarendu Nandy – Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute of Management (IIM) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court assigned case for hearing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. initial facts of petitioner's appointment. (Para 4) |
| 3. petitioner's argument against recovery order. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. respondents' justification for pay scale and recovery. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. summary of case facts and previous judgments referenced. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. court's principle from rafiq masih for recovery limitations. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's reasoning regarding pay scale and recovery ruling. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. final judgment and order. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
This matter has been assigned to this Bench by Hon’ble the Chief Justice and that is how this matter is listed before this Court.
2. Heard Mrs. Debolina Sen Hirani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prahsant Pallav, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.
3. Prayer in this petition is made for declaration that communication dated 02.06.2020 sent in the form of an email and the letter13.01.2020 both are sequels to the observations of the respondent no.5 vide their impugned report da
The court ruled that arbitrary recovery of excess pay is barred after eight years without evidence of wrongdoing, following established principles under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The court ruled against arbitrary recovery of excess salary, emphasizing protections for employees and the necessity for compliance with procedural justice.
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.
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....
Appointment of the petitioner and the re-designation are concerned, both the issues have been given a quietus by this Court. It is not that the State Government was not aware about the appointment so....
Recovery of excess emoluments from contractual employees due to departmental miscalculation of pay and allowances impermissible absent employee misrepresentation; quashed on equity grounds for class-....
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....
Recovery of excess payments from Class-III employees is impermissible without evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.
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
