S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
R. Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Engineer (C&M), Corporation Roads Division, Chennai – Respondent
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 th
Any order affecting the rights of the employee must be passed only after providing an opportunity to the employee.
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 ....
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....
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....
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....
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 excess salary after a significant delay is impermissible, especially when it causes hardship to employees, despite valid corrections in pay fixation.
Violation of principles of natural justice by not affording the petitioner an opportunity to defend against the allegations before passing the recovery order.
Opportunity to be heard and prejudice to the petitioner are essential considerations in matters of recovery of excess salary.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.