Gurcharan Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others
!"#$%"&'('#)*+,'-./
* 01 23
,"(")!
44444
/2
1 Petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the entry made in the service book vide letter dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure P-10) vide which the benefit of three increments, which was granted to the petitioners with effect from the date of passing of their qualification of Giani/Prabhakar, has been decided to be withdrawn.
! "
# $$% &
' " (&'")" *
+, # $ - .
/$
0 #
! 1/ /$
2 3 %# , 4 " 4 "
$
&'""5/
/$
%#
, , $ %
!1670897 %
#
$ ,
/$
,
# % +, $
% 1
$ 0!6:!606
# $%
,
,%
; < 0762; 0802;# ,606=0877 976 >!62;# , 6060087: . # $ 0!6:!606
% $$ ; <
$ # 4
1 = .,
% , # $
/ $ % # $ #
/ $$
,$ %?
. # $#$
# @
! " % $< ,,
" It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we made, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' Service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
9 .
, , ,
% $;...,$ %$ , >
$% , % <,
$%/ 7 + ,
+,'-./ A
2 B2 A $ B2