S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
E. Kasthuribai Gandhi W/o. S. T. Jothi – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Home (Courts-V) Department – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
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. Subsequently, she was promoted to the post of Head Clerk and working as such.
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 proceedings dated 16.03.2011 in the post of Copyist. The order of regularization issued in the year 2011 became final. Thus, the date of regularization of the petitioner is to be considered as 09.07.2009 for all purposes.
4. The Internal Audit Wing raised an objection that the increment granted from the date of initial appointment in the year 2007 was not in accordance with the Pay Rules and consequently, raised an objection and ordered for recovery of excess pay and allowances disbursed to the writ petitioner.
5. Mr.K.Venkat Ramani, learned Senior Counsel would contend that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has not made any misrepresentation regard
Recovery of excess salary after a significant delay is impermissible, and the date of regularization, once established, cannot be altered to affect pay increments.
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....
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.
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 cannot be initiated beyond the period of five years from the allegedly offending event.
The court emphasized that recovery of excess payments from Group-D employees is impermissible, and actions taken without due process violate principles of natural justice.
Redeployment to a post with identical pay scale does not constitute promotion, and excess personal pay need not be recovered from the retired employee.
Government cannot retrospectively reduce an employee’s pay or recover excess payments without due process, especially post-retirement.
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.