#administrative error

Rajasthan High Court rules that post-retirement pay revisions affecting pension and gratuity calculations cannot be imposed unilaterally without notice or hearing, upholding principles of natural justice. The judgment mandates recalculation of retiral benefits based on the last pay certificate, setting a precedent for administrative fairness in service law.

Bombay High Court rules that recovery of excess salary paid due to administrative error violates Article 14 and principles of natural justice if the employee is not at fault. The judgment protects retired government employees from financial hardship caused by state errors, setting a precedent for equitable treatment in public employment disputes.

Karnataka High Court reinforces the Rafiq Masih ruling, prohibiting recovery of excess salary from retired employees unless fault is established. The court directed recalculation of pension benefits with 6% interest from the retirement date, emphasizing natural justice in administrative errors.

HP High Court rules that bona fide students cannot be denied their LLB degree due to university clerical errors in admission lists. The judgment reinforces that administrative lapses must not prejudice students' right to education, relying on the precedent in Pratima Das v. State of H.P.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a student who completed an LLB course and cleared all examinations cannot be denied a degree due to clerical errors in university records. The court directed the university to issue the degree within four weeks of a mark correction application, emphasizing that bona fide students should not suffer for administrative lapses.

CAT Ernakulam ruled that a retired railway employee cannot be denied leave encashment due to administrative errors in service records, upholding the principle of legitimate expectation. The tribunal emphasized that certified pay slips and grievance records must prevail over retrospective corrections, protecting employees from bureaucratic oversights.

Kerala High Court holds that recovery of excess salary after 20+ years is inequitable where employee committed no fault and is nearing retirement, citing Supreme Court precedents.

Bombay High Court holds that accurate birth records must be corrected using documentary proof, even after one-year window, affirming the right to identity under Article 21.