Back
M. S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, SUKHVINDER KAUR
Bhakra Beas Management Board – Appellant
Versus
Jai Bhagwan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dt.16.10.2019 in CWP-5253-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The said Writ Petition had been preferred by the respondent herein challenging an office order dt.24.08.2015 (P9) passed by the Secretary of Bhakra Beas Management Board ( for short 'the Board') rejecting the respondent's representation dt.27.2.2015 to stop recovery of Rs.1,79,463/- on the ground that an excess increment was paid to him from 15.09.1995 when Second Time Bound Pay Scale was granted to him.
3. The respondent was initially selected as a Draftsman by the Subordinate Service Selection Board in the Haryana Irrigation Department on 15.09.1979. He was promoted as Divisional Head Draftsman in Drawing Branch of the Board in 1998 and later promoted as Sub Divisional Officer on 16.05.2013.
4. Thereafter, he was working as Assistant Design Engineer with the appellants. He retired from service on 31.07.2015 after attaining the age of superannuation.
5. He had been granted, while in service, his second time bound pay scale on 15.09.1995.
6. Just prior to his retirement in the year 2015, his service book was demanded f
Recovery from retired employees is impermissible when excess payments were made without misrepresentation, as per established legal precedents.
Recoveries from retired employees based on erroneous salary payments are impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and judicial discretion in enforcing employee rights.
The court ruled that recoveries from Group-C employees nearing retirement are impermissible, reaffirming protections established in Rafiq Masih.
Recovery of excess payments made to employees is impermissible where no fault exists on the employee's part and payments have spanned over five years, protecting livelihood rights.
The court established that recovery of excess payments from retired employees, particularly from lower service classes, is impermissible if it results in undue hardship, reinforcing the principles of....
Recovery from retired employees is impermissible unless an undertaking was provided prior to retirement, and pay re-fixation cannot occur after a long time gap.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible if it causes undue hardship, necessitating prior notice and opportunity for response before recovery.
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
