Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Jaswinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Punjab And Haryana, Chandigarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. By this common order, eight writ petitions, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being decided as all these petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.
2. In the present bunch of petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is that their pay has been revised by the respondents and after the revision, the recovery has been ordered and that too in a selective manner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the pay of the petitioners was fixed by the respondents as per the Notification issued in the year 2011 and the petitioners continued to receive the said re-fixed salary, which was fixed by the respondents on their own without there being any input by the petitioners and now, the said pay is again being re-fixed to the detriment of the petitioners and the recovery of the excess payment has also been ordered to be done starting from 01.01.2018, which action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no recovery of excess payment can be done from a Class-Ill or a Class-IV employee, especially when there is no misrepresentation on t
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.
Recovery of excess payments from employees without their fault violates principles of equity and fairness, especially when recovery occurs post-retirement and after a significant period.
Recoveries from retired employees based on erroneous salary payments are impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and judicial discretion in enforcing employee rights.
Point of Law : Relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that wi....
Where court arrives at conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of employer's righ....
Recovery from retired employees is impermissible when excess payments were made without misrepresentation, as per established legal precedents.
Recovery of excess payments from employees must consider the impact on individuals, particularly retirees, and may be deemed iniquitous if it leads to hardship.
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
