Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR
K. Srimathi – Appellant
Versus
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.M. Subramaniam J.
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in connection with the impugned order of recovery passed by the 2nd respondent in ROC No.39 / 2020 - A dated 07/02/2020 and the consequential downward revision order passed by the 3rd respondent in No.AG (A and E) PEN PO2 / 10226170 /1 RO222844 /167 dated 02/11/2020 and to quash the same.)
1. The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the re-fixation of pay and the consequential recovery imposed on the writ petitioner in proceeding dated 07.02.2020 and the consequential revision of pay issued in proceeding dated 02.11.2020.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Reader on 19.08.1998 in Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Services. She was promoted to the posts of Junior Assistant, Assistant, Bench Clerk Grade-II and finally, to the post of Interpretor to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court at Chennai.
3. The petitioner made a representation to the authorities seeking revision of pay scale based on G.O.Ms.No.291, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010. Since it was
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 emphasized the principles of fixation of pay in Selection Grade/Special Grade and the consistent policy of restricting the pay of the Selection Grade of the lower post to the pay of the Ord....
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 Government has an obligation to extend parity in pay scales to employees based on the recommendations of pay revisions, and subsequent restructuring of pay scales should not affect the applicabil....
Recovery cannot be initiated beyond the period of five years from the allegedly offending event.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in matters of pay refixation, emphasizing the technical nature of pay fixation and the requirement for expert ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that entitlement to selection grade and special grade is subject to completion of requisite years of service, and recovery orders issued within one....
State authorities cannot recover excess pay amounts from employees or retirees if the pay fixation was based on existing government orders until such time as the relevant service rules, specifically ....
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
