Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.60 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

Mukesh Jaswantrai Joshi vs Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation on 16 August, 2016

14. On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   for  respondent­Municipal   Corporation   has   relied   upon   the  judgment   of   the   Supreme   Court   in  Union   Territory,  Chandigarh and others Vs. Gurcharan Singh and another  (supra),  wherein it is stated that it is permissible  to rectify a mistake committed during pay fixation and  order recovery if the disbursement of the higher pay­ scale has been made by mistake. In the view of this  Court,   this  judgment  would  not   be   applicable  to  the  case of the petitioner as, while granting the benefit  of the next promotional post of Deputy Chief Auditor  in   the   pay­scale   of   Rs.8000­13500   as   per   the  Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, no mistake has  been committed. Instead, a correct decision was taken,  which   was   totally   in   consonance   with   the   said  Government   Resolution   that   has   been   adopted   by   the  respondent­Corporation, by its order dated 19.02.2007,  without any reservations.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - A Kumari - Full Document

Manharbhai C Mehta vs Bhavnagar Mahanagarpalika on 9 June, 2020

9.5 Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh and others vs. Gurcharan Singh and another reported in (2014 )13 SCC 598, and submitted that the Apex Court has permitted the re-fixation and recovery as well. It is further submitted that the re-fixation cannot be denied and so also recovery and that it is always permissible for the employer to re-fix the salary. Further even if the same has been done mistakenly, it can effect recovery from the officers/employees who have been paid the amount in excess.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

D R Joseph vs M/O Defence on 17 March, 2023

In this case, the applicants have retired from defence service and reemployed under the respondents after 1.1.2006 and their pay has been correctly fixed as per the clause 4(b)(i) of the Central Civil Service (Fixation of Pay of Re-Employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 as amended by the DOPT OM dated 5.4.2010 and as discussed above, it is in accordance with the Full Bench judgment dated 27.3.2019 12 OA 1296/2015 of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal and also the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh (supra) as discussed in para 17, 18 and 19 of this order. Hence, the DOPT OM dated 5.4.2010 will be applicable for the applicants' case and as per the para4(b)(i) as amend in the DOPT's OM dated 5.4.2010, the applicants will not be entitled 11 for protection of last pay drawn by them at the time of their re-employment. Hence, both the issues listed in para 16 of this order are decided accordingly against the applicants.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S Vijayan vs M/O Defence on 17 March, 2023

In this case, the applicants have retired from defence service and reemployed under the respondents after 1.1.2006 and their pay has been correctly fixed as per the clause 4(b)(i) of the Central Civil Service (Fixation of Pay of Re-Employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 as amended by the DOPT OM dated 5.4.2010 and as discussed above, it is in accordance with the Full Bench judgment dated 27.3.2019 12 OA 1296/2015 of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal and also the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh (supra) as discussed in para 17, 18 and 19 of this order. Hence, the DOPT OM dated 5.4.2010 will be applicable for the applicants' case and as per the para4(b)(i) as amend in the DOPT's OM dated 5.4.2010, the applicants will not be entitled 11 for protection of last pay drawn by them at the time of their re-employment. Hence, both the issues listed in para 16 of this order are decided accordingly against the applicants.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B Cyrus vs D/O Defence on 17 March, 2023

In this case, the applicants have retired from defence service and reemployed under the respondents after 1.1.2006 and their pay has been correctly fixed as per the clause 4(b)(i) of the Central Civil Service (Fixation of Pay of Re-Employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 as amended by the DOPT OM dated 5.4.2010 and as discussed above, it is in accordance with the Full Bench judgment dated 27.3.2019 of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal and also the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh (supra) as discussed in para 17, 18 and 19 of this order. Hence, the DOPT OM dated 5.4.2010 will be applicable for the applicants' case and as per the para4(b)(i) as amend in the DOPT's OM dated 5.4.2010, the applicants will not be entitled 11 for protection of last pay drawn by them at the time of their re-employment. Hence, both the issues listed in para 16 of this order are decided accordingly against the applicants.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next