Skip to main content

Recovery of excess amount paid held violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution

In an interesting case where petitioner has filed a writ petition seeking quashing of order for recovery of vacation salary granted to the petitioner by the respondents, the division bench of Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J and Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J accordingly quashed the said order and directed the respondents not to effect the recovery of the said amount from the petitioner and if the recovery is already made, must be refunded to the petitioner. In the instant case the petitioner has not played any role, played fraud or misrepresentation in release of the vacation salary.

The Court while deciding the petition extensively relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Court laid down the parameters of fact situations such that employees, who are beneficiaries of wrongful monetary gains at the hands of the employer, may not be compelled to refund the same. The Court further observed in the abovestated case that an action of the State, ordering a recovery from an employee would be fair, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent, that the action of recovery would be more wrongful, improper and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer, to recover the amount. The Court also noted that the recovery would be permissible till such time as it would not have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee.

Court also delved into explaining the doctrine of equality found in Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution and stated that such an action would breach the obligations of the State, to citizens of this country, and renders the action arbitrary, and therefore, violative of the mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Seema Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 918, decided on 20.04.2015]

 Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/05/02/recovery-of-excess-amount-paid-held-violative-of-art-14-of-the-constitution.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more