Search Results for "excess pension recovery"

120 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 120 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Allows Petition of Daily Wagers Against Recovery of Excess Salary. Recovery Order Quashed as Arbitrary Under Article 226 of Constitution of India for Payments Made Under Government Resolution Without Misrepresentation.

The petitioners, nine daily wagers employed with the respondent State of Gujarat, challenged a recovery order dated 04/02/2013 (No.113 of 2013) seekin...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Quashes Recovery of Excess Salary from Employees Without Hearing. Recovery of excess payment made due to wrong pay fixation without opportunity of hearing and at fag-end of service is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

The petitioners, employees of the respondent-Corporation, were promoted and granted stepping up of pay in 1996. In 2012, the Corporation sought to rec...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Recovery of Excess Salary from Retired Employee's Pension. Recovery from retiral dues set aside as employee did not misrepresent and pay fixation was departmental error.

The Petitioner, Vinay Mhatre, was appointed as a Tracer in the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (formerly Maharashtra Water Supply & Sewerage Project Bo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Retired Employees Against Recovery Orders in Service Law Case Due to Lack of Hearing and Erroneous Employer Interpretation. Recovery of Excess Payments After Retirement Held Illegal as No Misrepresentation by Employees and Based on Equity Principles to Prevent Hardship.

The dispute involved retired stenographers who had been granted financial benefits in 2017 based on the Shetty Commission recommendations, which were ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Retired Professor's Petition, Quashes Recovery from Gratuity and Pension. Recovery of Rs.8,43,782/- from retiral benefits set aside as employer failed to prove misrepresentation or fraud by employee, and recovery from pension/gratuity is impermissible under settled law.

The petitioner, Ganesh Sitaram Magar, a retired Ayurved professor, challenged the recovery of Rs.8,43,782/- from his gratuity and pension benefits. He...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Recovery of Alleged Excess Pay from Leave Encashment – Section 33-C(1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Recovery of excess payment after five years held iniquitous and arbitrary, following Chandi Prasad Uniyal principle.

The petitioner, Vilas Pandurang Markande, a former employee of the Mumbai Port Trust (respondent No.2), filed a Writ Petition challenging the order da...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Reduction of Pension and Recovery of Excess Payment. Employer's Order Reducing Pay Fixed at Retirement and Recovering Excess Amount Set Aside as Violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Unreasonable.

The petitioner, Vijay Sambrao Bharati, a retired employee of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, challenged an order of his employer that reduced the pay ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitions Challenging Recovery from Gratuity of Retired Class III and IV Employees. Recovery of excess payment made due to wrong pay fixation without fault of employee is impermissible after retirement.

The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by retired Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs) employed with Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. The petitioners, J...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Employer's Challenge to Industrial Court Order Quashing Recovery of Excess Salary Paid Due to Employer's Mistake. Recovery of Rs.1,94,637/- from Retired Employee Set Aside as Employer's Inadvertence Cannot Be Visited on Employee.

The respondent, Sou. Anjali Anil Tare, was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in 1977 and passed her lower division grade examination in 1980, ...