AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kannan, J.—The impugned order of recovery is on the basis that an increment of Rs. 40/- given and granting a salary of Rs. 1,440/- per month was erroneous when he was given a deemed date promotion as Assistant Foreman (AFM) effective from 03.09.1986 pursuant to a civil Court decree. The challenge is on the basis that he had realized the increased pay right from the time when it was given effect to by the civil Court decree, but however, only the backwages were not provided by the decree as modified by the District Court. He had held two promotion posts subsequently one, as a Foreman on 25.08.2005 and second, as a Foreman-I on 12.12.2007. According to him, the benefit of increase could not be recovered after such a length of time without in any way issuing a notice and more so, when the increase was not due to any fraud or misrepresentation made by the petitioner. He would place reliance on the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) PLR 511 that refund or recovery shall be impermissible in a case where an employee himself was not at fault, especially when the mistake was not merely arithmetical or clerical but even it was on account of even an improper application of Rules.
I would hold the objection raised to be tenable. The impugned refixation is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be paid all monetary entitlements in accordance with law and the same shall be calculated and released to the petitioner as expeditiously possible, in any event, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.