Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
The Director General of Police – Appellant
Versus
S.Natarjan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. erroneous incentive increment granted to constables. (Para 2) |
| 2. single judge set aside recovery and refixation; parties argue delay and notice. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. recovery barred after 5 years without employee fault. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. pay refixation upheld; appeals partly allowed with refunds. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)Nos.21711 of 2023, 23986 of 2023, 14092 of 2024 and 19750 of 2023 respectively, dated 31.07.2024, whereby the order of recovery as well as the revised pay fixation were set aside, the present Writ Appeals have been filed by the State.
2.The first respondent/writ petitioners in all Writ Petitions retired as Special Sub-Inspector of Police in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022 respectively. While they were serving as a Grade-I Constable, an incentive increment was erroneously granted to them in the year 2013. As per the applicable rules, they were not entitled to such incentive increment. Subsequently, after their retirement, it was noticed, based on the communication of the Accountant General, that the pay had been wrongly fixed. Consequently, th
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
