Back
PARESH UPADHYAY, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
C. Alexandar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 23.12.2021 in W.P. No.7296 of 2020.
Common Judgment
Paresh Upadhyay, J.
1. Challenge in this group of appeals is made to the order dated 25.12.2021 recorded on group of writ petitions being W.P.No.7307 of 2020 and cognate petitions. The respondents in the writ petitions are in appeal.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that, the learned single Judge was in error while arriving at the conclusion that, the order of revision of pay and also the consequential recovery was unsustainable. It is submitted that, according to appellant authorities, the writ petitioners were granted higher scale erroneously - against the policy of the State and having realised the same, as pointed out by the audit authorities, corrective steps were taken and no exception ought to have been made therein. It is noted that, the learned Additional Advocate General has taken this Court extensively through the G.Os on record so also the reasoning recorded by learned single Judge and the final conclusion arrived at in para 96 of the order under challenge. It is submitted that, the revision of pay, in the facts of
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....
Employees are entitled to a higher pay scale after 15 years of service based on government resolutions, irrespective of specific qualifications.
The court established that pay scales for employees in different Nagarpalikas cannot be equated due to distinct financial and regulatory frameworks governing each entity.
The decisions of expert bodies like the Pay Commission in the matter of pay-scale fixation are not ordinarily subject to judicial review.
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 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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the error in fixation of pay is to be corrected right from the III Pay Commission fixation and the petitioners are to be promoted to the highe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility for the revised scale of pay as per the Government letter dated 08.11.2010 based on the date of award of Selection Grade.
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
