Back
BATTU DEVANAND
C. Porchelvi – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Rep. , by its Secretary,Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent in reference Memo No.008038/G. 17/G-171/2015-1, dated 19.08.2016 and quash the same.)
1. Heard Mr.V.Veerapandian, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.M.Parameswari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an Engineering Graduate. He joined as Assistant Engineer (Training) with the then Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, now known as Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) on 07.06.1995. He was confirmed and appointed as Assistant Engineer on 07.09.1995 in the basic pay scale of Rs.2150-85-2570-85-3050-105-3680 and drawing a basic pay of Rs.2,150/-. Thereafter, he passed the Electricity Account Test of the Department and was granted incentive increment and his pay was increased to Rs.2,235/- on 24.05.1996. He was also granted regular annual increment and his basic pay scale was increased to Rs.2,235/- on 24.05.1996. He was also granted regular annual increment and his basic pay scale was increased
Recovery cannot be initiated beyond the period of five years from the allegedly offending event.
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....
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.
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....
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....
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.
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 court established that while authorities can correct pay fixation errors, the recovery of excess payments must consider the potential hardship to the employee, especially after a long period.
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
