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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more