Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
The Director General of Police – Appellant
Versus
K Puthiyavan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. erroneous incentive increment led to recovery challenge post-retirement. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellants defend revision; respondent cites delay and no notice. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. recovery barred after five years without employee fault. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. revised pay fixation upheld; appeal partly allowed. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.20081 of 2023, dated 31.07.2024, whereby the order of recovery as well as the revised pay fixation were set aside, the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the State.
2.The first respondent/writ petitioner retired as a Special Sub-
Inspector of Police in the year 2020. While he was serving as a Grade-I Constable, an incentive increment was erroneously granted to him in the year 2013. As per the applicable rules, he was not entitled to such incentive increment. Subsequently, after his retirement, it was noticed, based on the communication of the Accountant General, that the pay had been wrongly fixed. Consequently, the appellants passed proceedings revising the pay fixation and, thereafter, issued an order dated 08.10.2021 directing recov
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
