Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20031 (2.57 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014

Rajendra Prasad vs The State Bank Of India on 17 February, 2024

19. While on the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2016 With W.P.(S) No.2229 of 2016 [9] contended by referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. (supra) wherein in the context of the master and employee relationship that judgment was passed. But, herein, the appellant-Bank was having no master employee relationship with the writ petitioner rather the Bank has acted only as an agent on the option being rendered for the family pension and the writ petitioner, in course thereof, has been paid excess amount to his entitlement, therefore, the decision taken by the respondent bank for recovery of the excess paid amount cannot be said to suffer from an error.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Rajendra Prasad vs The State Bank Of India on 17 February, 2024

19. While on the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2016 With W.P.(S) No.2229 of 2016 [9] contended by referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. (supra) wherein in the context of the master and employee relationship that judgment was passed. But, herein, the appellant-Bank was having no master employee relationship with the writ petitioner rather the Bank has acted only as an agent on the option being rendered for the family pension and the writ petitioner, in course thereof, has been paid excess amount to his entitlement, therefore, the decision taken by the respondent bank for recovery of the excess paid amount cannot be said to suffer from an error.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

M R Gadekar (Sr. Citizen) vs Government Of Nct Delhi And Ors on 24 September, 2025

It is further submitted that the ratio of the judgment rendered in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (whitewasher) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since the plaintiff falls under the category of a retired employee and excess payments have been made for a period more than 5 years i.e. from the year 2008 to 2016. It is further submitted that no show cause notice was ever issued to the plaintiff prior to effecting unilateral recovery. It is further submitted that unilateral recovery was effected despite the plaintiff informing defendant no 3 that he is suffering extreme financial hardship due to the unilateral action of defendant no 3.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India Workers Union vs Food Corporation Of India & Anr. on 16 May, 2019

It is principally submitted in this review petition that some of the employees in category II drew more than Rs.1 lakh per month and therefore recovery of excess payment could not be considered harsh or arbitrary and that the ratio laid down in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 would not strictly be applicable.
Delhi High Court Cites 91 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Mahipal Singh Dhayal vs Chief Manager Punjab National Bank ... on 9 February, 2023

As per the stand taken by the Bank, the aforesaid amount was wrongly credited to the account of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was liable to repay the same. It has been so stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was erroneously paid disability element of Rs. 2,982/- per month with DA w.e.f. 01.09.2012 to 31.10.2016 with resulted in overpayment of Rs. 3,02,136/- and when the matter came to the notice of the Bank on 24.10.2016, the same was taken up with the Centralized Pension Payment 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2023 00:05:40 ::: CWP-7514-2017 (O&M) -5- Centre of the Bank which immediately stopped the disability pension from November, 2016 and thereafter only normal pension was credited in the account of the petitioner. It was because of this reason that now recovery has been started against the petitioner for the excess amount which was wrongly credited in his account on account of disability pension. It has been further so stated that the petitioner has also furnished an undertaking vide Annexure R-1 whereby he has undertaken that in case any excess amount is credited in his account, then the Bank was authorised to recover the same. Therefore, the recovery was in accordance with law. It has been also stated in para No.10 of the reply that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc.(Supra) is not applicable in the present case because the petitioner was not an employee of the respondent-Bank and the Bank is only recovering the unauthorised credit which was inadvertently made in the account of the petitioner and that the petitioner was duly aware about this wrong credit in his account to which he was not entitled.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - J S Puri - Full Document

The State Of Jharkhand vs Ranjit Bihari Prasad on 21 July, 2022

7. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. S.C.-III appearing for the State-appellants, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that in the given case the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others (Supra) is not applicable but applying the said judgment in the facts of the given case, the impugned orders have been quashed, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Ranjan - Full Document

A Rajeswara Rao vs National Water Development Agency on 22 August, 2024

6. But apart from this it is also not denied that the applicant superannuated in January 2024 hence the detection of his wrong fixation and order for recovery and refixation of his salary dated 01.05.2023 was within less than last 01 year of his service. The contention of the respondents is that as the applicant was Senior Class -I officer and also Head of Office at the time of the said order of refixation dated 01.05.2023, hence it does not get protection of the Supreme Court Judgment as cited in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334. And as the applicant has not implemented the said refixation of his salary when he himself was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer for his salary on 01.05.2023 and till the date of his retirement there is mala fide and omission on his part.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 July, 2022

5. Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously argues that the impugned order of recovery is not tenable in the eyes of law, in view of the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Further, it has been argued that there was no misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioner and as such, both the orders of recovery i.e. recovery of the amount towards gratuity as well as arrears of salary, which accrued to him due to grant of benefits of ACP, are illegal and fit to be quashed and set aside.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S N Pathak - Full Document

K.Sundari vs The Commissioner Of Treasuries And ... on 12 August, 2024

10. The facts of the present case is identical to the facts of the case in the Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.604 of 2024 dated 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.5695 of 2017 03.04.2024 relied upon the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner is a Class-III employee. Out of the total sum of Rs.60,913/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirteen only) a sum of Rs.14,238/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Eight only) has already been recovered from the petitioner. The recovery made by the respondents is contrary to the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay the entire amount of Rs.60,913/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirteen only) is also contrary to the said decision and therefore, the impugned order has to be necessarily quashed and the third respondent has to be directed to refund the excess payment of a sum of Rs.14,238/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Eight only) recovered from the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Ram Milan Yadav Pno. 812060663 vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 20 December, 2024

In light of the above, this Court after examining the matter is of the considered view that issue raised in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 squarely applies to the facts of the present case, the recovery which has been sought to be made is for a period 2016 and onwards and accordingly the salary of a government employee is vested right cannot be recovered by the respondents in the manner as has been done, even with regard to the re-fixation of the salary, the same cannot be done without affording any adequate opportunity to the government servant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Mathur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next