Mohinder Singh (Retired Helper) v. State Of Haryana And Others
!
"
# $%
! & ! '
! ()&* % #! '
)&+&,)"
# -( .*)&* &#! )&* %/0
"# $ % *+ .
%
2 + ! & + 34 !5 !
.
!
certiorari 6!
7&8!
% &%%++ #) 7&8!
% ! &! #*.
#$) )
3
2-% % !
6!
6! # %
7&8!
9) 7&8!
9
7&8!
9 :
!+ % inter alia
-%!
.
! ) .
) %
; ".* %+
#% !%
%&'()
- !+- .
%! - #.
-% 1 ! # %% + + 2# % .
- "!
!2-
%! - -%! % +
&%%++ #)+ 2+2 - + !
! #- ! %+
#% % - % < %
) =!
+ + %2. -%+# -%+# 8 ! !
* . =!
!%+
# % % %! -
%! -!
2=!2#+
!+ %2# +# !%$!+729 != 2*+
*$!+.
% * .
+ % !+ ! 2# % %
! -! -%+# ".* % *
%%+ 2+ %
% %
%
# 2+ -) ) -%+#
+% 5
*
+
!+ %
% ! +
)
%
%
; ).
%+
# % .
2 - !+- %! - !
) %%++ ! # - %% +* 1 !
+ %+ 2#+
!+ %!%$!+729 != 2*+ *$!+-! %%++#%
#
%&'() 2+ - % %
) -+#)% * %-%+# & ).!+2% 2+ =! -
2# .>! ? "@2+ !% -!
*
+"#&,,,$
---).
% (
!
>!
--A!
)% ++. " 5. In view of the absence of such provisions in the above said regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant.
!
!
!
"#$%& '
!
! (
!
!
and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement." (emphasis supplied) * ) ! # -%
-
-!%
2 "B2+ !% -!
-!+%+ 5) *
+!
, - ./ / 0 2#3& .40
""4" .>! ? "B2+
!% -!
++# +
# - -%+# -% -2++ . % (
!
>!> '
++. .
2 *
C12. 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.
!
! '
5 ' '
'
!
' !
!
':
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class'III and Class'IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) (ii) ,
'
'
(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.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."
5 *. ! 2*) % .
%
++.1 7&8!
9% &%%++ #) 7&8!
9% ! &! # + 6! #%
2# %
+ -! + . DE - #++ !
+ +F % . %
- - % %# #
$
-&&)( Neha % ( 3 G3/ % 2+ G3/