Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
P. Bathirasamy – Appellant
Versus
Registrar General High Court, Madras – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of recovery order dated 19.08.2021 in Proceeding No.22/2021 passed by 3rd respondent for recovery of excess pay and allowance of Rs.1,21,552/- from the petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to remit back the recovered amount Rs.1,21,552/- to the petitioner.]
The re-fixation of pay and the consequential recovery order passed by the respondents are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner is working as Driver under the learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC Act Cases, Coimbatore. The petitioner has been awarded Special Grade in the post of Driver with effect from 22.03.2020. He was continuously receiving increment based on the revised pay granted in the post of Special Grade Driver. Based on the Audit Report submitted by the Internal Audit Wing of the Madras High Court, the Authorities passed an order revising the scale of pay and consequential recovery.
3. Mr. S. Tamilselvan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the pe
Opportunity to be heard and prejudice to the petitioner are essential considerations in matters of recovery of excess salary.
The court established that recovery of excess salary from a retired employee is unjustified if it causes undue hardship, despite the authority's power to correct pay errors.
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.
Authorities have the power to correct pay fixation errors, but recovery of excess payments is not permissible if the employee did not misrepresent their pay and if such recovery would cause undue har....
Recovery cannot be initiated beyond the period of five years from the allegedly offending event.
Point of Law : Recovery of excess salary amount paid - It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, yet in the following situa....
The court established that recovering excess salary from employees years after erroneous fixation causes undue hardship, especially for pensioners.
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
