S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
D. Devi W/o. Mathiyalagan – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government – Respondent
ORDER :
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Roc. No.105514-A/2022/IAW dated 26.07.2023 and the consequential proceedings of the 3rd respondent in D. No.5922/2023 dated 09.08.2023 and the 4th respondent in D.No.524/2023 dated 23.08.2023 with respect to refixation of pay and recovery, quash the same and direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service from the date of joining in the post of Typist/Copyist namely 27.08.2007 with all consequential service and monetary benefits and grant such other further reliefs.
The Audit Objections raised by the Internal Audit Wing of Principal Seat of Madras High Court is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.
2. The writ petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Copyist through Employment Exchange.
3. It is not in dispute that though the petitioner was appointed to the post of Copyists in the year 2007, her services were regularised with effect from 09.07.2009 in procee
Recovery of excess salary after a prolonged period is impermissible, especially when prior regularization orders are final.
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 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 recovery of excess salary from a retired employee is unjustified if it causes undue hardship, despite the authority's power to correct pay errors.
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.
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 after a significant delay is impermissible, especially when it causes hardship to employees, despite valid corrections in pay fixation.
Regularization of service is the exclusive domain of the employer, and temporary and casual employees cannot seek regularization. Government orders come into effect from the date of issuance unless s....
The acceptance of a regularization condition precludes the claim for retrospective appointment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.