Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
T. Soundararajan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Public Department, Secretariat, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.(Ms).No.184 Public Department dated 04.03.2014 and quash the same and to direct the 2nd respondent not to make any recovery from the salary of the petitioner.)
1. The order of re-fixation and the consequential recovery issued by the first respondent in G.O.(Ms).No.184, Public Department dated 04.03.2014 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner is now working as Municipal Commissioner and previously, he was working as Assistant Section Officer in the Secretariat.
3. Pursuant to the application submitted by the writ petitioner to step up his pay on par with his junior Tmt.K.Udayam, Assistant Section Officer, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, the first respondent issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.357, Public Department dated 16.03.2007. Pertinently, the stepping up of pay was granted in favour of the writ petitioner only based on his representation and the comparative charge filed along with his juniors pay Tmt.Udayam. In
The central legal point established is that any order affecting the rights of an employee, such as pay re-fixation and recovery, should be passed only after providing an opportunity for the employee ....
Opportunity must be provided before re-fixation of pay, and excess amount paid cannot be recovered from retired employees.
The central legal point established is that any order affecting the rights of an employee, such as the fixation of pay, should be passed only after affording an opportunity for hearing to the employe....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that any order affecting the rights of an employee, such as the fixation of pay, should be passed only after affording an opportunity for a hear....
The central legal point established is that any order affecting the rights of an employee should be passed only after affording an opportunity to the employee concerned, in accordance with the princi....
Any order affecting the rights of the employee must be passed only after providing an opportunity to the employee.
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 alleged excess salary payments from Group 'C' or 'D' employees, which occurred due to administrative error without any misrepresentation by the employee, is impermissible in law.
Violation of principles of natural justice due to cancellation of pay revision without affording the petitioner an opportunity to respond.
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
