S.Sridharan v. the Registrar General
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court allowed the writ petition in part, quashing the recovery order of Rs.7,83,945/- due to the establishment's long delay in correcting an erroneous pay fixation, while confirming the corrected pay rules and المحكمة analysis of the audit objection.
What did the court decide?
Recovery of excess salary of Rs.7,83,945/- is set aside; revised pay fixation confirmed; applicability of audit objection upheld.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.8405 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.No.8405 of 2024 and
W.M.P.Nos.9364 and 9366 of 2024
S. Sridharan S/o. Selvaraj
... Petitioner
Vs.
- The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai-104.
- The Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.
- The Special Judge, Special Sub-Court for MCOP cases, Cuddalore.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the validity of an audit objection regarding recovery of excess pay is maintainable before the State.
Whether the recovery of excess salary must be set aside due to long inaction by the authority in identifying or acting on the erroneous pay fixation.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S. Sridharan
- respondent
The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai-104
- respondent
The Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore
- respondent
The Special Judge, Special Sub-Court for MCOP cases, Cuddalore
- respondent
The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court