Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.D.Maria Clete, S.M.Subramaniam
L.Ramanathan – Appellant
Versus
Registrar General, Madras High Court – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
The order of re-fixation and consequential recovery dated 15th October 2023 is sought to be assailed in the present writ proceedings.
2.The petitioner served as a Junior Assistant and retired from service on 31.10.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. Admittedly, his pay was fixed by the respondents. However, the internal audit wing of the High Court during inspection found that the revision of pay had been erroneously granted which resulted in a financial loss to the State exchequer. Consequently, the impugned order of re-fixation of pay and consequential recovery was issued.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the erroneous fixation of pay. That apart, he has submitted an explanation stating that his pay had been refixed in accordance with the relevant pay rules and therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose by stating that the revision of pay was carried out based on the option exercised by the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2009. The declaration under Schedule-IV, signed by
An employee's undertaking to repay excess salary due to erroneous fixation is binding and enforceable under law.
The court established that recovering excess salary from employees years after erroneous fixation causes undue hardship, especially for pensioners.
Recovery of excess salary cannot be enforced without prior hearing, especially when no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee is established.
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 is impermissible when employees are not at fault, emphasizing equitable relief to prevent undue hardship.
Recovery of excess salary after a significant delay is impermissible, especially when it causes hardship to employees, despite valid corrections in pay fixation.
Recovery of excess salary payments from retired employees is restricted by time limits and conditions set by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for clarity in undertaking declarations.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible without adherence to natural justice, especially when payments were made for an extended period without notice.
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
