Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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

12 February 2025 12:37 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

 

Latest Legal News