Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
C. Bakiyaraj – 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, to quash the proceedings bearing D.No.990/2023 dated 02.02.2023 passed by the 3rd respondents thereof and consequently direct the respondents to grant 5% Personal Pay to the Senior Bailiff as per G.O.(Ms) No.664 dated 24.08.1992 with effect from 01.08.1992.
The order of revision of pay and consequential recovery issued by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram in proceedings dated 02.02.2023 is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Senior Bailiff on 07.02.2000 in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Services. His pay was fixed by the Establishment as per the Pay Rules and Government Orders, which were in force. The petitioner was awarded Selection Grade in the post of Senior Bailiff in proceedings dated 30.05.2011. Consequently, his pay was revised. The Internal Audit Wing of the High Court of Madras during the audit identified erroneous grant of 5% Personal Pay to the petitioner, pursuant to the 5th Pay Commission recommendations. The 5% Personal Pay was
Competent authorities can correct pay fixation errors at any time, but recovery of excess pay must be balanced against the potential hardship to the employee.
Recovery of excess salary after a significant delay is impermissible, especially when it causes hardship to employees, despite valid corrections in pay fixation.
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 cancellation of the government letter and the application of FR 22(1) a(i) and FR 22-B in fixing pay for police personnel were central to the court's decision.
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 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.
Recovery cannot be initiated beyond the period of five years from the allegedly offending event.
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.
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
