Back
L. VICTORIA GOWRI
N. Chitrarasu, Retired Special Sub Inspector of Police, Thanjavur – Appellant
Versus
State Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented through its Secretary, 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 pertaining to the order of regulation and recovery of pay order passed by the fourth respondent in D.O.No.68/2020 in R.C.No.S2/2501/2020, dated 06.02.2020 and quash the same, further direct the respondents to repay the recovered sum of Rs.1,67,517/- (One Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Seventeen Only) with 18% interest.)
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of regulation and recovery of pay passed by the fourth respondent in D.O.No.68/2020 in R.C.No.S2/2501/2020, dated 06.02.2020 and quash the same, further direct the respondents to repay the recovered sum of Rs.1,67,517/- (One Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Seventeen Only) with 18% interest.
2. Heard Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Thambi Durai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, 6 & 7 and Ms.S.Mahalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and perused the materials avai
The cancellation of the government letter and the application of FR 22(1) a(i) and FR 22-B in fixing pay for police personnel were central to the court's decision.
The cancellation of the government letter led to the non-est status of the regulation of pay, influencing the court's decision to quash the impugned orders and direct repayment with interest.
The cancellation of the government letter dated 24.08.2007 rendered the impugned orders non-est in the eye of law, leading to the quashing of the orders and the direction for repayment and pension re....
The impugned order of regulation/revision of pay, based on a cancelled government letter, was non-est in the eye of law, and the court directed the respondents to refix the petitioner's pay and revis....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Government Letter dated 24.08.2007, its subsequent cancellation, and the non-est nature of the impugned orders based on t....
Recovery of excess payment from an employee's pensionary benefits is impermissible if such payments were made more than five years prior to the recovery order or were made without the employee's faul....
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 ....
Recovery of excess payment from a retiree is impermissible if such payments were made more than five years prior to the recovery order or without following due process as prescribed by law.
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
