AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 220 wordsWe have heard Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri J.P. Sharma learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
The respondent while working as Supply Inspector retired on 31.7.2006 after attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement an order dated 30.8.2007 has been passed by the appellant No. 5 to recover the amount of Rs. 42.302/ from the gratuity of the respondent which was paid in excess from the year 1979 as the salary was erroneously fixed Rs. 560/ instead of Rs. 545/ per month.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in Radha Kishun v. Union of India and others, (1997) 9 SCC 239. The decision of this Court could not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is not disputed by the appellants that no misrepresentation was made by the respondent. It was the mistake of the department and as such in view of the various decisions of this Court the employer could not recover any excess amount paid to the respondent during his service period after his retirement.
For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.