Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1953 (1.50 seconds)
Documents citing High Court Of Punjab & Haryana vs Jagdev Singh on 29 July, 2016

Rajendra Alexander & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 3 February, 2025

We find that the ratio of judgment in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra) has no applicability to the facts of this case. At this stage, we may state that Mr. Birbal has made a submission that departmental proceedings were initiated against twelve employees of DDA and out of whom ten employees including the petitioner have been found guilty. Suffice to state, such a stand was not pleaded by the respondents before the Tribunal. In any case, the said aspect has no bearing on the issue decided by the Tribunal.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Pravinkumar Gordhandas Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 6 April, 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4740/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined 6.2.1 Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, Rule 28(2) of the Rules of 2002, though, permits re-fixation of pay- scale, it expressly prohibits any recovery from the concerned employee and therefore, the decision, in the case of 'High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others Vs. Jagdev Singh' (Supra), relied on by the learned Advocate, Mr. Chauhan, shall not apply to the facts of the present case."
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N S Desai - Full Document

Ajendra Nath Sarma vs M/O Science And Technology on 22 July, 2020

15. From the perusal of the above order, it is apparent that Hon‟ble High Court distinguished the case with Jagdev Singh (supra) because no show cause notice was issued before issuing recovery orders and clearly held that Group C employees would not be covered within the four corners of law laid down in Jagde Singh‟s case (supra). In the present case also, no show cause notice was issued to the applicant before initiating recovery from the pensionary benefits. Despite applicant‟s representation for supply of basis of re- fixation downgrading his pay no document has been supplied to the applicant. Thus applicant is absolute in dark on what basis recovery is being attempted from his DCRG.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P M Pandi vs Central Silk Board on 8 April, 2026

11. The applicants failed to show if these orders in any way could overcome the ruling of Hon'ble apex court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others v. Jagdev Singh on 29.07.2016 reported in 2016 14 SCC 267 as their facts are different. Hence, these rulings do not help in any way in the Review Application. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order in the O.A and the Review Application is without merit. Hence, we pass the following orders:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Purushottam Shrivastava vs M/O Mines on 17 November, 2017

In the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. vs. Jagdev Singh (supra), the employee had Opted for revised pay scale and while submitting that option, he had furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would be liable to refund any excess payment made to him. While relying upon the said specific undertaking, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took a view that the recovery of amount of excess payment was justified. In the instant case, the applicant had retired on 31.08.2013 and he was made the payment of Transport Allowance as arrears by the respondents in the month of September, 2014 while interpreting the Office Memorandum dated 29% August, 2008 in his favour. Neither there was any misrepresentation on the part of the applicant nor he had played any fraud upon the respondents in order to claim the said allowance.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kishor Lal Das vs The State Of Tripura on 7 March, 2024

In the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih(White Washer) and others and High Court of Punjab & Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh (cited supra), the matter has been categorically dealt with Page 8 of 8 and keeping in view of the said judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded by the employee in view of the undertaking executed.
Tripura High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - T A Goud - Full Document

Z Iqbal vs M/O Mines on 17 November, 2017

In the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. vs. Jagdev Singh (supra), the employee had Opted for revised pay scale and while submitting that option, he had furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would be liable to refund any excess payment made to him. While relying upon the said specific undertaking, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took a view that the recovery of amount of excess payment was justified. In the instant case, the applicant had retired on 31.08.2013 and he was made the payment of Transport Allowance as arrears by the respondents in the month of September, 2014 while interpreting the Office Memorandum dated 29% August, 2008 in his favour. Neither there was any misrepresentation on the part of the applicant nor he had played any fraud upon the respondents in order to claim the said allowance.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next