Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
A. Vijayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Home (Court-V) Department, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent namely, the Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104 to absolve the recovery of the amount of Rs.1,82,322/- to be recovered from the petitioner as per the internal audit report dated 11.12.2006 to 31.10.2022.
1. The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the 2nd respondent to set aside the recovery of excess salary paid to the writ petitioner from 11.12.2006.
2. The Internal Audit Wing of the Madras High Court raised an objection regarding the fixation of pay of the writ petitioner. As per the Shetty Commission Report employees appointed prior to 31.12.2005 are eligible to draw one increment. Employees appointed after 31.12.2005 are not eligible for such increment.
3. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was appointed on 11.12.2006 after implementation of Shetty Pay Commission. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for one increment, which was erroneously granted at the instance of the administration. The petitioner was eligible to avail the scale of pay of Rs.3,200/-. But her pay was erroneously fixed as Rs.3,285/- by adding
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.
Recovery of excess salary after a prolonged period is impermissible, especially when prior regularization orders are final.
Opportunity to be heard and prejudice to the petitioner are essential considerations in matters of recovery of excess salary.
Recovery of excess salary after a significant delay is impermissible, and the date of regularization, once established, cannot be altered to affect pay increments.
The authority can rectify pay fixation errors at any time, but recovery of excess payments after a long delay may be unjust and cause hardship.
Recovery of excess salary can be enforced against an employee if they knowingly received double benefits under different pay structures, despite it being a result of erroneous pay fixation.
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
