Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Nand Kishor Shukla – Appellant
Versus
tate Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Abdul Moin, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pankaj Patel, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4.
2. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being decided.
3. The instant petition has been filed praying for the following main relief(s):
"(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.3, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 1 to the petition.
(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the amount of Rs.553407.29/- along with interest which has been recovered by the respondents from the post retiral dues of the petitioner."
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2021 while working on the post of Sales Officer. Subsequent thereto, the respondents have issued the order impugned dated 13.10.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the wri
Amendments to regulations cannot apply retrospectively to actions taken before their enactment, but an employee's undertaking may allow for recovery in certain circumstances.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that recovery from retiral dues after retirement is impermissible in certain situations, and the protection of pension and gratuity rights of re....
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.
The petitioner's undertaking at the time of payment bound him to refund any excess payment detected later, even after retirement.
Recovery from retired employees is impermissible when excess payments were made without misrepresentation, as per established legal precedents.
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible unless fraud or misrepresentation is established, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.
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
