Sanctioned Strength of Junior Engineers Found to Be 384 – 76 Employees Rightfully Entitled to Selection Grade: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Selection Grade for Junior Engineers of Haryana State Electricity Board Retaliatory FIRs in Matrimonial Disputes Are an Abuse of Law: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIRs in Matrimonial Dispute GOVERNMENT CANNOT SPEAK IN TWO VOICES – PENSION RIGHTS FOR SEASONAL LABOUR ROLL WORKERS MUST BE RECONSIDERED: KERALA HIGH COURT Properties Dedicated to Deity Cannot Be Alienated Without Compliance Under HR & CE Act: Madras High Court IEX Rates Cannot Be Used as Benchmark for Electricity Transfers Under Section 80IA(8): Delhi High Court Punishment Must Be Proportionate to the Gravity of Charges: Rajasthan High Court Applies Doctrine of Proportionality Court Fees Ad Valorem to Be Paid Only on Earnest Money, Not Full Sale Consideration: Punjab & Haryana High Court False Promise of Marriage Vitiates Consent Under Section 90 IPC: High Court Notional Income of a Student Cannot Be Equated to an Unskilled Worker in Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court Rejecting the Application Solely Due to Postal Delay Would Result in an Unfair Denial of Opportunity: Punjab and Haryana High Court Appointments Made Through an Unconstitutional Process Confer No Right to Continue: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Recruitment No Scope for Partial Compromise in Criminal Proceedings: Punjab and Haryana High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form a Complete Chain – If Two Views Are Possible, Benefit of Doubt Must Go to the Accused: Supreme Court Recoveries Made Without Adhering to Principles of Natural Justice Are Fundamentally Flawed and Cannot Stand: High Court

Recoveries Made Without Adhering to Principles of Natural Justice Are Fundamentally Flawed and Cannot Stand: High Court

11 February 2025 3:47 PM

By: sayum


Punjab & Haryana High Court directs refund of Rs. 1.86 lakh recovered from retired PSPCL employee without prior notice." In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside recovery orders issued by Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL) against a retired employee, Khem Singh. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, which prohibits such recoveries under specific circumstances.

Khem Singh, who served as a Meter Inspector with PSPCL and retired on June 30, 2017, had amounts of Rs. 40,551 and Rs. 1,45,708 deducted from his gratuity payments in 2017 and 2023 respectively. These deductions were attributed to alleged excess payments made due to erroneously granted increments during his service from 2013 to 2022. Singh contested these recoveries, claiming they were made without issuing a show cause notice or providing an opportunity for a hearing, violating natural justice principles.

The court criticized the PSPCL for unilaterally making deductions from Singh’s gratuity without prior notice or a hearing. "Recoveries made without adhering to the principles of natural justice, such as issuing a show cause notice or personal hearing, are fundamentally flawed and cannot stand," the court observed.

Justice Namit Kumar underscored the applicability of the Supreme Court's ruling in Rafiq Masih, which outlines scenarios where recoveries from employees are impermissible. These include recoveries from retired employees, employees due to retire within a year, and cases involving excess payments spanning over five years.

The judgment reiterated that recoveries from retired employees, especially those from Group C or Class III posts, are impermissible unless obtained through fraud or misrepresentation by the employee. "The facts and circumstances of the present case suggest no fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner, warranting the recovery to be declared unlawful," the court stated.

Justice Kumar emphasized, "The stand of the respondents-Corporation is not sustainable as even if an excess amount based on wrong fixation of pay was paid to the petitioner, the same cannot be recovered from him after his retirement."

The High Court’s decision to quash the recovery orders against Khem Singh highlights the judiciary's commitment to protecting employees' rights, especially post-retirement. By directing the refund of the recovered amounts with interest, the judgment reinforces the importance of natural justice and adherence to legal precedents set by higher courts. This ruling is expected to set a strong precedent for similar cases, ensuring that retired employees are not unduly burdened by retrospective financial recoveries.

Date of Decision: 12 July 2024

 

Similar News