Plea against recovery of excess salary dismissed
TNN | Jun 10, 2019, 04.40 AM IST
Madurai: The Madras high court dismissed the plea of a retired official to prevent recovery of excess salary received by him.
The petitioner, R Kamaraj, who was an assistant director in the Khadi and Village Industries board at Karur, sought to quash proceedings by the regional deputy director of Khadi and Village Industries to recover the recover excess salary from the petitioner.
The counter affidavit filed by the regional deputy director stated that the petitioner retired from service on February 28, 2013, on attaining the age of superannuation. He submitted the petitioner was working as assistant director and his pay was fixed at Rs 8,275 from January 1, 1996.
The petitioner agreed to an undertaking that ‘any excess payment that may be found to have been made as a result of incorrect fixation of pay or excess payment deducted in the light of discrepancies notice subsequently will be refunded by him to the government either by adjustment against the future payments.
Justice S M Subramaniam observed that the petitioner cannot go back on the undertaking and observed that only in cases where the excess amount of recovery imposed at the instance of the establishment, the court can grant relief of quashing the recovery orders. The judge directed that the petitioner is liable to repay the excess payment already received by him and dismissed the petition.
TNN | Jun 10, 2019, 04.40 AM IST
Madurai: The Madras high court dismissed the plea of a retired official to prevent recovery of excess salary received by him.
The petitioner, R Kamaraj, who was an assistant director in the Khadi and Village Industries board at Karur, sought to quash proceedings by the regional deputy director of Khadi and Village Industries to recover the recover excess salary from the petitioner.
The counter affidavit filed by the regional deputy director stated that the petitioner retired from service on February 28, 2013, on attaining the age of superannuation. He submitted the petitioner was working as assistant director and his pay was fixed at Rs 8,275 from January 1, 1996.
The petitioner agreed to an undertaking that ‘any excess payment that may be found to have been made as a result of incorrect fixation of pay or excess payment deducted in the light of discrepancies notice subsequently will be refunded by him to the government either by adjustment against the future payments.
Justice S M Subramaniam observed that the petitioner cannot go back on the undertaking and observed that only in cases where the excess amount of recovery imposed at the instance of the establishment, the court can grant relief of quashing the recovery orders. The judge directed that the petitioner is liable to repay the excess payment already received by him and dismissed the petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment