#Administrative Equity

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the state cannot recover excess pension payments made more than five years prior to retirement when it failed to finalize pension accounts as mandated by Rule 74 and the 2015 circular. This ruling protects retired government servants from retrospective financial demands arising from administrative negligence, reinforcing the principle that procedural compliance is non-negotiable in pension matters.

The Sikkim High Court has affirmed that a government corrigendum granting retrospective appointment entitles an employee to notional seniority and consequential promotions, even when a later irregular appointment exists, provided no third-party rights have been adversely affected. This reinforces administrative equity in service law and clarifies that procedural irregularities do not automatically nullify legitimate retrospective benefits.

Rajasthan High Court rules that candidates appointed through the same recruitment process must receive identical annual grade increments, regardless of delayed joining after 30.06.2017. The judgment directs correction of discriminatory pay practices, ensuring administrative equity under the Rajasthan Civil Services Pay Rules.