Back
ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
Gopal Krishna Sharma (Deleted) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
New India Insurance – Respondent
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
^^¼7-1½ fiVh'kuj dh fiVh'ku d¨ Lohdkj djrs gq, mld¨ çnku fd, x, lsokfgr ykÒ¨a esa ls vfèkd Òqxrku dh olwyh #i, 2]03]698@& ¼n¨ yk[k rhu gtkj N% l© vuBkuos #i,½ d¨ ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk fn, x, leku fn'kk funsZ'k¨a d¢ Øe esa lekurk ls C;kt lfgr 30 fnol esa Òqxrku dj okfil çnku fd, tkus d¢ funsZ'k&vkns'k fjLi¨UMsUV~l foÒkxh; çkfèkdkfj;¨a d¨ çnku djus dh Ñik U;k;fgr esa djsaA
¼7-2½ vU; mfpr fjV] vkns'k vFkok funsZ'k U;k; fgr esa fiVh'kuj d¢ i{k esa tkjh djus dh Ñik djsa] çdj.k O;; fLi¨UMsUV~~l ls fnyk, tkus dh Ñik djsaA**
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner's husband was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 1985. Thereafter, on 31.10.2017, petitioner's husband (original petitioner) was retired from the post of Assistant Teacher which is class-III post. When the case of petitioner's husband (original petitioner) was sent for pension settlement on the work of the retirement then at that time, Joint Director, Treasury raised objected for recovery on account of approved pay fixation. Thereafter, amount
Recovery of excess payment from retired employees is impermissible after five years unless a valid undertaking exists; arbitrary recovery orders are quashed.
Class III employees cannot be subjected to recovery of excess payments within one year of retirement, regardless of any prior undertaking.
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
