SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
R. Rajesh - Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Engineer (C&M), Corporation Roads Division, Chennai & Another - Respondent
WP No. 3393 of 2015 & MP No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 26-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Hemnath, S. Sivakumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader.

Any order affecting the rights of the employee must be passed only after providing an opportunity to the employee.

Headnote:

Opportunity - Employee Rights - The court quashed the order of re-fixation and recovery, emphasizing that any order affecting the rights of the employee must be passed only after providing an opportunity to the employee.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner, a Road Inspector Grade-II, had his pay revised and recovery imposed without a show cause notice or opportunity to be heard.

Finding of the Court:

The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to issue a show cause notice and consider the case for refixation of pay or correction of error, while prohibiting the recovery of excess salary paid to the petitioner.

Issues: Violation of employee rights, lack of show cause notice, and hardship due to recovery of excess payment.

Ratio Decidendi: Any order affecting the rights of the employee must be passed only after providing an opportunity to the employee.

Final Decision: The order of re-fixation and recovery was quashed, and the respondents were directed to issue a show cause notice and consider the case for refixation of pay or correction of error, while prohibiting the recovery of excess salary paid to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in connection with the impugned order of recovery passed by the first respondent in Se.Mu.Ka.No.90/09/B1, dated 20.01.2015 and to quash the same.)

1. The order of re-fixation and consequential recovery issued by the first respondent in proceedings dated 20.01.2015, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Road Inspector Grade-II on 25.02.2011 in the Highways Department. The Grade Pay was fixed as Rs.2,000/- by the first respondent at the time of appointment of the writ petitioner vide proceedings dated 25.02.2011. The petitioner was receiving the same continuously. Suddenly, the order impugned dated 20.01.2015 was passed stating that there was an audit objection regarding the grant of Grade Pay and accordingly, the pay of the writ petitioner was revised and recovery was imposed in respect of the excess payment of salary to the writ petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that neither a show cause notice was issued nor an opportunity was given to the writ petitioner before passing the impugned order.

4. This Court is of the considered opinon that any order affecting the rights of the employee, must be passed only after providing an opportunity to such an employee.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, is unable to establish that the show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner before issuing the order impugned and the refixation was done based on the audit objection raised by the Competent Authority. That apart, the petitioner wasworking as Group IV employee and thus the recovery of excess payment would result in hardship.

6. For all these reasons, the order impugned passed by the first respondent in proceedings Se.Mu.Ka.No.90/09/B1 dated 20.01.2015 is quashed and the respondents are directed to issue show cause notice, setting out the facts and details to the writ petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner is at liberty to submit his objections within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the show cause notice to be issued by the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents shall consider the case of the writ petitioner for refixation of pay or correction of error in the fixation and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. However, the excess salary paid to the writ petitioner cannot be recovered.

7. With the abovesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top