Back
PULLA KARTHIK
P. Madhusudhan Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
Pulla Karthik, J.
Since the lis raised in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Sri M. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.12715 of 2024, Sri A.Raghuram, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.13687 of 2024, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent No.1, Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for National Institute of Technology, and Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel for Union of India.
W.P. No.12715 of 2024
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein was appointed as Physical Director on 24.03.1992 in the respondent-NIT. Thereafter, he was promoted as Physical Director (Selection Grade) in the scale of 12000-4520-18300 w.e.f.29.02.2004 vide order dated 03.08.2004. Further, he was redesignated as Associate Professor of Physical Education w.e.f.01.01.2006 vide order dated 25.01.2016. He was also sanctioned fixation of pay and grade increments on 22.02.2018 in the VII Central Pay Commission. Further, Academic Grade Pay was mapped from Rs.9000/- to Rs.9500/- in the post of Associate Professor o
Recovery of excess payments after five years without notice is impermissible under Article 14, violating natural justice principles.
Recovery of erroneously paid salaries is impermissible when procedure is flawed, emphasizing employee rights and administrative fairness.
Recoveries from retired employees based on erroneous salary payments are impermissible, emphasizing equitable treatment and judicial discretion in enforcing employee rights.
Recovery of excess payment from employees must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot be made after an unreasonable delay, especially for Class-3 employees.
The court ruled against arbitrary recovery of excess salary, emphasizing protections for employees and the necessity for compliance with procedural justice.
Recovery of excess pay impermissible if employee retires within one year of order or excess paid over five years, absent fraud.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that no recovery can be made from an employee if the excess payment was not due to any fault on the employee's part, as determined by various legal....
Appointment only as Physical Education Teacher - Refund excess amount - It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on issue of recovery, where payments h....
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
