Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Ut Chandigarh vs Gurcharan Singh on 3 April, 2014

Mr. Somappa S/O. Veerappa ... vs The Registrar on 12 March, 2018

12. Considering the above said three decision including the latest one (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 334 it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, where the court has considered, when such an amount when can be withheld or recovered from the pensioner. Therefore, a person is not entitled to that particular amount as a matter of fact. Whether that can be : 12 : withheld as per the above said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh and others Vs. Gurcharan Singh and another is to be tested by considering the facts of this case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K N Phaneendra - Full Document

The Academy Of Medical Sciences vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 27 September, 2018

In the judgment in Union Territory, Chandigarh and others vs. Gurcharan Singh and another : (2014) 13 SCC 598 the question which arose for consideration was regarding rectification of mistake in refixation of pay, by the employer. None of those judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner relates to a case where the employer stopped remitting contribution after enrolling its employees, with the knowledge that their wages were in excess of Rs.6500/-. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel are rendered under different circumstances and hence cannot be applied in the factual circumstances of this case.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P V Asha - Full Document

Kamla Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 August, 2018

8. The reliance of the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) and in case of Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. (supra) is of no help to them as nothing has been brought on record to show any misrepresentation or manipulation on the part of the petitioners. The recommendation was made by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ranchi and the same was approved by the Commissioner himself. The petitioners were never posted in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga. Once the pay scale has been granted and approved by the Higher Authorities, the same cannot be subject matter of review by the Authority Lower in rank or by the same Authority. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that now approval of the Commissioner is not required.But admittedly, it was approved by the Commissioner and Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ranchi was not competent to review the earlier order, which was approved by the Commissioner, rather he could have referred the matter before the Director of Education or other authority higher in rank than the Commissioner. Even if approval was not required, any order visiting with Civil or Evil consequences, cannot be passed without affording ample opportunity of hearing to the concerned employees. Merely issuance of show cause cannot be equated with the cardinal principles of natural justice. Impugned order is silent, nothing has been mentioned 10 regarding the reasons for reducing the pay-scale and order of recovery. The action of the respondents is not tenable in the eyes of law. Hence, the impugned order bearing memo No. 1301 dated 16.10.2017 is fit to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. Some of the petitioner have already retired, in that matter of the case, order of recovery could have been passed by initiation of proceeding under Section 43 of the Pension Rule. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vrs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. [(2014) 4 SCC 334], has held as under :-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S N Pathak - Full Document
1