Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. vs Baleshwar Singh And Anr. on 11 May, 2006

The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. vs Padmalochan Kalindi And Anr. on 11 October, 2007

The decision in the case of Smt. Girish Kumari Prasad, supra, has absolutely no conflict with the decision of the Division Bench in State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Baleshwar Singh and Anr. (Hon'bles S.J. Mukhopadhaya & Permod Kohli, J) or any other decision of this Court referred to above. In the instant case learned Single Judge has decided the impugned order holding that no amount can be recovered from the pension except by an order passed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 as in the instant case, neither the State Government nor the competent authority has initiated any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the said Rules while the petitioner was in service and even after 16 years of his retirement and even the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the said Rules is barred by limitation and the same cannot be initiated now. He further held that no recovery can be made from the pension of the petitioner including the provisional/final pension or from the gratuity. Learned Single Judge has noticed that even recovery by way of suit and certificate proceeding is also time barred after lapse of 16 years from the retirement of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 2.9.97 (Annexure-2) issued by the Accountant General as well as the letter dated 3.1.05 (Annexure-3) issued by the Block Development Officer, Chandankeyari seeking recovery were quashed and the respondents were directed to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner. The respondents were also directed to finalize the pension of the writ petitioner within the time prescribed and to pay the admitted arrears with interest @ 5 % with cost. The said order of the learned Single Jude has been passed after taking into consideration the relevant provisions and the same is in consonance with the other decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, as noticed above. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. There is, thus, no merit in this letters patent appeal which is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the 1st respondent.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 23 - N N Tiwari - Full Document

Smt. Normi Topno vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 11 October, 2007

23. On the other hand, on the basis of the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in Sahib Ram's Case and Bijay Bhadur's Case, Division Bench of this Court in Baleshwar Singh's case 2006 (4) JLJR 259 has specifically framed this question posed before Page 0299 this Court and gave an answer to the effect that since the specific powers for recovery has been conferred to the Government under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, without following the procedure contemplated under the said Rule and without giving opportunity to the retired employee with reference to the various conditions contemplated in the said Rule, the Department cannot be allowed to recover any amount and the same can be done only in a manner which has been prescribed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, that too by the competent authority.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 46 - M K Vinayagam - Full Document

Mahadeo Prasad Sahu vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 24 August, 2011

In one of the cases, the State of Jharkhand vs. Baleshwar Singh and another [2006 (4) J.L.J.R 259] where excess payment made was sought to be recovered/adjusted from the pension, the Court had taken notice of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rule which does stipulate about the revision of pension in case of service of the pensioner being not satisfactory but in the facts and circumstances, it was observed that the rule is not applicable. However, it was held that the power of recovery is vested with the State Government under Rule 43(b) which is subject to limitation prescribed under the rule. Therefore, it was held that any other authority if not authorized by the State does not have power of recovery or adjustment of the excess amount paid from the amount of pension. But in none of the cases either decided by the Full Bench, Division Bench or the Single Bench, the provisions of Rule 201 and 202(1) of the Bihar Pension Rule have been taken notice of. Rule 201(1) of the Bihar Pension Rule does speak about the admissibility of the pension strictly under the Rules. The said Rule reads as follows:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R R Prasad - Full Document

Mohan Lal vs National Capital Territory Of Delhi ... on 24 April, 2025

(52) State of Punjab etc. Vs. Jangir Singh decided by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in RSA No. 361-2004 (O&M) on 21.12.2017. (53) The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs Baleshwar Singh & Anr. decided by the High Court of Jharkhand At Ranchi decided on 11.05.2006 in MANU/JH/0372/2006 (54) Normi Topno Vs. The State of Jharkhand decided by the High Court of Jharkhand decided on 11.10.2007.
Delhi District Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indu Bhushan Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 28 March, 2012

The decision in the case of Smt. Girish Kumari Prasad, (supra), has absolutely no conflict with the decision of the Division Bench in State of Jharkhand and others v. Baleshwar Singh and another, 2006(4) JCR 660 (Jhr) (Hon'bles S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Permod Kohli, J) or any other decision of this Court referred to above. In the instant case learned single Judge has decided the impugned order holding that no amount can be recovered from the pension except by an order passed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 as in the instant case, neither the State Government nor the competent authority has initiated any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the said Rules while the petitioner was in service and even after 16 years of his retirement and even the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the said Rules is bared by limitation and the same cannot be initiated now. He further held that no recovery can be made from the pension of the petitioner including the provisional/ final pension or from the gratuity. Learned single Judge has noticed that even recovery by way of suit and certificate proceeding is also time barred after lapse of 16 years from the retirement of the petitioner. The impugned order dated 2.9.1997 (Annexure-2) issued by the Accountant General as well as the letter dated 3.1.2005 (Annexure-3) issued by the Block Development Officer, Chandankeyari seeking recovery were quashed and the respondents were directed to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner. The respondents were also directed to finalize the pension of the writ petitioner within the time prescribed and to pay the admitted arrears with interest @5% with cost. The said order of the learned single Judge has been passed after taking into consideration the relevant provisions and the same is in consonance with the other decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, as noticed above. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the learned single Judge. There is, thus, no merit in this letters patent appeal which is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the 1st respondent.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P P Bhatt - Full Document

Kartik Prasad Deo vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 24 April, 2012

From the said judgment, it is clear that no amount can be recovered from the pension except by order passed under Rule 43-B of the Bihar Pension Rules and in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that during the entire service of the petitioner any proceeding was initiated against the petitioner or any order has been issued under Rule 43-B of the Bihar Pension Rules 1950.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P P Bhatt - Full Document
1   2 Next