Back
VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
Nirmala – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
ORDER
1. The petitioner was appointed on 18.6.1987 to the post of Asst. Professor. When the respondent was not granting higher pay scale and selection grade pay to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble court and in compliance of the Hon’ble High Court order dated 23.4.12, respondent No.1 has granted senior pay scale w.e.f. 18.6.1995 and selection grade pay w.e.f. 18.6.2000. The petitioner stood retired on 31.5.2022, and the respondents have not sanctioned pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefit to the petitioner. This Hon’ble court vide order dated 5.10.23, asked the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner and the respondent has decided the representation of the petitioner vide order dated. 20.10.2023. Thereafter, this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 7.11.2023 directed the OIC to remain present and in retaliation, the respondent withheld the gratuity of the petitioner vide order dated 8.11.2023. The respondent vide another order dated 9.11.2023, modified the order dated 20.3.2013, and the senior grade pay has been sanctioned from 1.4.2000 and the selection grade has been sanctioned from 1.10.2001. Further, the respondent No. 4
Recovery of excess payments from retired employees is impermissible under certain conditions, particularly relating to Class III and IV service classifications and time limits for recovery.
The court emphasized that recovery from a retired employee for excess payment without prior notice is impermissible under established legal principles.
Recoveries from retired Group-C employees without prior notice are impermissible under established legal principles, reaffirming the need for due process in excess payment cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recovery of an amount from a retired employee, in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud, and due to a misconception leading to the exc....
Recovery from retired Class III employees is impermissible without misrepresentation, as established by the Supreme Court.
Recovery of excess payment from retired employees is impermissible after five years unless a valid undertaking exists; arbitrary recovery orders are quashed.
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
