S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
P. Kalaimani – Appellant
Versus
Registrar-General – Respondent
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
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.
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 significant delay is impermissible, especially when it causes hardship to employees, despite valid corrections in pay fixation.
The binding nature of an employee's undertaking regarding the recovery of excess pay and the authority of competent authorities to re-fix pay scale based on applicable Pay Rules and Government Orders....
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.
Recovery of excess salary after a prolonged period is impermissible, especially when prior regularization orders are final.
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.
Prematurity of a writ petition in challenging the recovery of excess pay due to wrong fixation, and the significance of the presence of an undertaking by the petitioner.
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.