Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. ARUN KUMAR NIGAM AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr. Arun Kumar Nigam And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 72874 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 17652 (13 November 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 2

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72874 of 2005

Dr. Arun Kumar Nigam and another

Versus

State of U.P. and others

_________

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.

Both the petitioners have been wrongly paid extra emoluments over and above their entitlement. The total extra payment to each of the petitioners comes to about Rs. 75,000/-.

Refund has been ordered, against which the petitioners have filed this writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed and we have heard the learned standing counsel. It has not been alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioners were in any manner responsible for the wrong fixation of the emoluments because of which the overpayment was made.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma Versus Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Harish Chandra Srivastava Versus State of U.P., (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1840, both of which are to the effect that overpayment due to wrong fixation of salary can not be recovered from the concerned employee unless the employee has been a party to or in any manner responsible for the wrong fixation.

In these circumstances, we allow this writ petition and quash the letter dated 7.3.2005 issued by the respondent No. 3 in respect of petitioner No. 1 and the letter dated 29.7.2005 issued by the same respondent in respect of petitioner No. 2, by which it has been directed that excess amount paid to these petitioners should be recovered.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Dated: November 13, 2007

AM/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.