Recovery of Excess Salary from Retired Employee Set Aside by Court in Light of Binding Precedent.
20 December 2024
Unpaid salary/bonus/gratuity >> Workplace/ Professional Related
In Ram Milan Yadav v/s State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. & Others., the petitioner, a retired Head Constable, challenged an order from the D.C.P., Headquarter, Lucknow, dated 14.10.2022, which re-fixed his salary and sought recovery of Rs. 3,94,142 from his post-retiral dues, spanning from 2016 until his superannuation. The petitioner argued that the recovery was unfair and illegal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (2015), which prohibited recovery from retired employees, particularly in cases involving excessive payments made more than five years ago. The petitioner also pointed out that no opportunity for hearing was given before the recovery was made.
The Standing Counsel opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner approached the court too late and that the Rafiq Masih judgment was based on Article 142 of the Constitution, thus not binding as precedent. However, the court disagreed, affirming that the judgment was a binding precedent, being based on Article 136 of the Constitution, and applied the same to the petitioner’s case. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order, prohibiting recovery from retiral dues, and directing the respondents to re-fix the salary after giving the petitioner a fair hearing. Additionally, the recovery already made was to be returned to the petitioner within six weeks.