CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka 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