Excess Salary Paid By Mistake Can Be Recovered From Employees Who Gave Undertaking: Supreme Court Dismisses Teachers' Plea

The Supreme Court has recently upheld the recovery of Academic Grade Pay benefits that were given by mistake to the teachers of the National Institute of Technology (NIT), Calicut, holding that the recovery was valid because the teachers had given written undertakings to refund excess payments.A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu ruled so while dismissing the appeals...

Motor Accident Compensation Can't Be Based Solely On Basic Salary; Employment-Related Allowances Must Be Included: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that employment-related allowances forming part of a deceased employee's regular earnings must be taken into account while assessing his income for computation of motor accident compensation, and cannot be excluded merely because they are described as allowances.The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that the assessment of income cannot be confined to...

Delay In Deciding Govt Servant's Plea Against Deemed Suspension After Release From Custody Indicates 'Malice In Law': Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that Rule 4(3)(b) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 casts a mandatory obligation on the competent authority to take an express and conscious decision on the representation made by a Government servant against his deemed suspension after his release from custody. It held that deemed suspension does not lapse on its own...

Enhanced Gratuity For Consumer Federation Employees Operates Only From Statutory Amendment Date: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing and Consumers Federation Limited (HIMFED) who retired before March 29, 2018 are not entitled to the enhanced gratuity ceiling of ₹20 lakh. The Court observed that since the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was amended with effect from March 29, 2018, employees who had superannuated...

Advocates Not Responsible For Petitioner's Whereabouts After Filing, But Must Verify Genuineness While Accepting Vakalatnama: Gauhati High Court

A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that advocates cannot be held responsible for the physical whereabouts of a writ petitioner after filing, however, they must exercise care while accepting Vakalatnama and satisfy themselves about the genuineness of the litigant. Background Facts The appellants...

Non-Disclosure Of Prior Job Application By Newly Appointed Employee Can't Defeat Old Pension Scheme Benefit: Calcutta High Court

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Amrita Sinha and Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury held that procedural requirements for disclosure of prior job applications should be interpreted liberally, and non-disclosure by a newly appointed employee unaware of such obligations does not bar entitlement to a beneficial welfare scheme (Old Pension Scheme). Background...

Unchallenged Order Directing Salary Payment Cannot Validate Appointment Based On Forged Approval: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an administrative order directing payment of salary confers no enforceable right to salary from the State exchequer, even where it was never challenged or set aside, if the approval order on which the appointment rests is later found to be forged. It held that the finality attaching to an administrative order is distinct from the legality of the...

Employee Terminated After Acquittal Entitled To Back Wages Till Reinstatement: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that when an employee is terminated after being acquitted in a criminal case, s/he would be entitled to back wages for the period between such termination and reinstatement. The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K Agarwal and Justice Inderjeet Singh observed that even though subsequent acquittal did not retrospectively erase legal consequences of...

Writ Court Can't Sit As Academic Expert To Decide Equivalence Of Degrees Where Rules Prescribe None: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the service rules prescribing the qualification for a post make no provision for consideration of equivalent degrees, the writ court cannot decide whether a degree not named in the rules is equivalent to the one prescribed. It held that in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot sit as an academic...

AP High Court Quashes MGNREGA Employee's Removal After Panchayat Downgraded, Cites Lack Of Hearing Or Alternative Post Under Policy

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the removal of a contractual Field Assistant under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) noting that it was done without notice, without giving a hearing and without offering the alternative engagement contemplated under the applicable policy.[2026 LiveLaw (AP) 227]The issue arose after the petitioner failed to meet...

Teacher's Challenge To Termination By Private Unaided Trust Not Maintainable In Writ, Dispute Is Contractual: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition challenging the termination of a teacher by a private unaided educational institution run by a trust is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that the dispute being a purely contractual one between employer and employee.Distinguishing between the amenability of a private body to writ jurisdiction and...

No Distinction Between 'Honourable' & Other Acquittals For Service Benefits: Rajasthan High Court Orders Full Salary For Suspension Period

The Rajasthan High Court has held that there is no legally sustainable difference between 'honourable acquittal' and 'acquittal' for the purpose of granting service benefits to a suspended employee. The bench of Justice Anand Sharma set aside the orders of the employer-LIC (respondent) as per which the petitioner was denied the service benefits for his time when he was put under suspension...