SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1823

S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
P. Kalaimani – Appellant
Versus
Registrar-General – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.Tamilselvan
For the Respondent: Mr. M.Fakkir Mohideen

ORDER :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The writ petitioner was working as Masalchi and subsequently she was transferred to the post of Office Assistant in the pay band of Rs.4,800/- - Rs.10,000/- + Rs.1,300/- Grade Pay.

2. The pay was revised by the first respondent in proceedings dated 23.08.2012. Promotional increment was also sanctioned on transfer from the post of Masalchi to the post of Office Assistant on 03.09.2012.

3. However, based on the Audit Report of Internal Audit Wing of the Madras High Court, the Special Sub Judge, Cuddalore issued order re-fixing the scale of pay of the writ petitioner and consequentially ordered for recovery of excess pay and allowance paid to the writ petitioner to the tune of Rs.91,988/-.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation nor responsible for erroneous fixation of pay. In the event of recovery at this length of time, the same would result in hardship. Thus the recovery is to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents would oppose by stating that the Authorities Competent are empowered to correct the mistakes in the fixation of pay.

6. In the present case, the Internal Audit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top