Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
S. Varadharajan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Home (Courts-V) Department – 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, calling for the records relating the 3rd respondent proceedings issued in D.No.11363/2022 dated 15.12.2022, the consequential letter dated 16.08.2023 with respect to recovery proceedings and the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in D.No.8948/2023 dated 30.11.2023, quash the same and direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service from the date of joining in the post of Typist namely 27.08.2007 with all consequential service and monetary benefits and further direct the respondents to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner within a reasonable time.]
The writ petitioner is a retired employee served in the Judiciary. The Internal Audit Wing of Madras High Court raised an audit objection stating that the pay admissible to the petitioner was erroneously fixed in the year 2007. Along with the audit slip, notice was issued to the petitioner by affording opportunity. The petitioner submitted his objections, which were considered by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. The order impugned was passed ref
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.
The court established that recovering excess salary from employees years after erroneous fixation causes undue hardship, especially for pensioners.
Recovery of excess salary after a significant delay is impermissible, especially when it causes hardship to employees, despite valid corrections in pay fixation.
Recovery of excess salary after a prolonged period is impermissible, especially when prior regularization orders are final.
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 of excess payment from a retired employee should not be allowed, especially in the absence of misrepresentation, as it would result in hardship. Any order affecting the right of an employee ....
Erroneous fixation of pay or pension can be corrected, but recovery after retirement causing hardship is not sustainable without evidence of misrepresentation or written undertakings.
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.
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
