Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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