Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Jatinder Kumar Sood Son Of Shri Shanti ... vs Bhakra Beas Management Board on 15 March, 2012

Janinul Nishah vs M/O Defence on 23 December, 2021

7. The applicant has also relied upon number of judgements including judgement of the Full Bench of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Budh Ram & Ors. decided on 22.5.2009, reported as 2009 (3) SCT 333 P&H FB; Sahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCT 668, P.H. Reddy Vs. N.T.R.D. 2002 (2) SCT 987; and Sudarshan Kumar Sood & Others Vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board, Chandigarh & Others, 2006(1) RSJ 308.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India & vs Tarachand J Chauhan on 14 February, 2013

To the same effect are the decisions of the Supreme Court in Babulal Jain vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2007(3)SCT 134, and State of Haryana and another Vs. Partap Singh and Others, 2007 (1) RSJ 6 and the decisions of the Division Bench of P&H High Court in Sudarshan Kumar Sood and others Vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board, Chandigarh and others 2003(1) RSJ 308, Ajit Singh Vs. Managing Director, PEPSU Road Transport Corpn. and another 2007(3) RSJ 83 and Union Territory Chandigarh Administration and others Vs. Sudesh Rathore and others 2004(1) RSJ 523. It is in the light of the above pronouncement, no longer open to the authorities granting the benefits, no matter erroneously, to contend that even when the employee concerned was not at fault and was not in any way responsible for the mistake committed by the authorities, they are entitled to recover the benefit that has been received by the employee on the basis of any such erroneous grant. We say so primarily because if the employee is not responsible for the erroneous grant of benefit to him/her, it would induce in him the belief that the same was indeed due and payable. Acting on that belief the employee would, as any other person placed in his position arrange his affairs accordingly which he may not have done if he had known that the benefit being granted to him is likely to be withdrawn at any subsequent point of time on what may be then said to be the correct interpretation and application of rules. Having induced that belief in the employee and made him change his position and arrange his affairs in a manner that he would not otherwise have done, it would be unfair, inequitable and harsh for the Government to direct recovery of the excess amount simply because on a true and correct interpretation of the rules, such a benefit was not due. It does not require much imagination to say that additional monetary benefits going to an employee may not always result in accumulation of his resources and savings. Such a benefit may often be utilized on smaller luxuries of life which the employee and his family may not have been able to afford had the benefit not been extended to him. The employees can well argue that if it was known to them that the additional benefit is only temporary and would be recovered back from them, they would not have committed themselves to any additional expenditure in their daily affairs and would have cut their coat according to their cloth. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that in case the employees who are recipient of the benefits extended to them on an erroneous interpretation or application of any rule, regulation, circular and instructions have not in any way contributed to such erroneous interpretation nor have they committed any fraud, misrepresentation, deception to obtain the grant of such benefit, the benefit so extended may be stopped for the future, but the amount already paid to the employees cannot be recovered from them.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V M Sahai - Full Document

The State Of Punjab And Others vs Nirmal Singh --Respondent on 30 May, 2012

9. To the same effect are the decisions of the Supreme Court in Babulal Jain vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2007 (3)SCT 134, and State of Haryana and another Vs. Partap Singh and Others, 2007 (1) RSJ 6 and the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Sudarshan Kumar Sood and others Vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board, Chandigarh and others 2003(1) RSJ 308, Ajit Singh Vs. Managing Director, PEPSU Road Transport Corpn.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - T S Dhindsa - Full Document
1