Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 85 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Wazir Chand vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 14 September, 2000

Unknown vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2011

At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment given by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Wazir Chand Vs. Union of India & Others (2001 SC (L&S) 1038). In the said case, the Apex Court has an occasion to deal with identical case whereby the railway employee had submitted that in view of Full Bench decision of the Tribunal, the respondents could not have withheld his gratuity to adjust the dues of Govt. employee on account of non-vacation of Government quarter. It was held by the Apex Court that they are unable to accept the contention as the applicant having unauthorisedly occupied the Government quarter was liable to pay the penal rent in accordance with rules and, therefore, there was no illegality in those dues being adjusted against the DCRG of the appellant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kishorebhai Babudas Puranverari vs State Of Gujarat on 21 September, 2020

23. At this stage, the judgments cited by learned advocates for the respondents, deserve brief mention. So far as the orders passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India vs. Shiv Charan (supra) and Wazir Chand vs. Union of India (supra) are concerned, both the orders are passed in the facts of the case prevalent therein and cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, more particularly when GIDC is unable to point out any policy permitting withholding of the reitral dues.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

The Project Officer vs Union Of India on 20 March, 2023

20. The judgement of Wazir Chand (supra) also does not apply to the facts of this case. In the present case the order of dismissal dated 15.06.1990 also contained a direction to evict the quarter and upon failure, steps were to be taken to enforce the right of CCL and dues was to be settled when commitments were checked. The order of dismissal containing the aforesaid stipulation of eviction of quarter was subject-matter of consideration in an arbitration, wherein an award dated 14.02.1997 was passed and as per the award, the private respondent was entitled for certain amount of salary of her late husband till the date of superannuation or till the date of death whichever was earlier and there was also a direction to make payment of gratuity in terms of the said award. Admittedly, the private respondent evicted the quarter on 19.10.2001 and thereafter filed a petition to realize the gratuity amount as per the arbitration award. The award did not direct for any adjustment or recovery of any penal rent or recovery of any dues. The appellate authority while passing the impugned order has acted in terms of the award.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Bhurabha Narubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 21 September, 2020

23. At this stage, the judgments cited by learned advocates for the respondents, deserve brief mention. So far as the orders passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India vs. Shiv Charan (supra) and Wazir Chand vs. Union of India (supra) are concerned, both the orders are passed in the facts of the case prevalent therein and cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case, more particularly when GIDC is unable to point out any policy permitting withholding of the reitral dues.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Binny Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Labour on 14 February, 2011

In the judgment reported in 2001 (3) LLN 822, Wazir Chand v. Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court categorically viewed that an employee who unauthorisedly occupied the Government quarters, is liable to pay the penal rent in accordance with rules, and therefore, there is no illegality in those dues being adjusted against the Death-cum-Retirement dues of the appellant. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order which requires the interference by the Supreme Court. The gravity of the situation is to be understood on the basis of such judgment. No question of voluntary scheme available there but even then on the basis of superannuation the Supreme Court was pleased to say that there is no illegality of recovery of penal rent in accordance with rules to get it adjusted with the Death-cum-Retirement Rules of the employees. There should be a balance in between getting the superannuation benefits by the employees and getting release of the quarters in favour of the employer. Instant case stands on a much better position.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

S K Jain vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan on 18 October, 2022

5.7 In view of the aforesaid Rule position, it is highlighted that the reliance has been placed on Rule 69 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, which is misplaced and mis-interpreted by the learned counsel for the respondents inasmuch as no final order regarding "retirement benefit" or "pension order" has been sanctioned in terms of the said Rule 69 (2). The said Rule 69(2) pre-supposes passing of a final order for retirement benefits. Since no final order has been passed in terms of Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules and only 11 OA No. 3210/2018 Provisional Pension Order has been passed, therefore, no adjustment can take place. 5.8 Reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Wazir Chand vs. Union of India, (2001) 6 SCC 596 wherein the facts of the case are entirely different to the facts of the present case, as the applicant therein was a retired employee who continuously occupied the Government quarter unauthorizedly and he was liable to pay penal rent and balance amount of the gratuity was paid to him. As in the present case, the penalty of withholding of pension in full was imposed and the only order which is also sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court in aforesaid writ petition No.9833/2015 is still pending. The facts of the present case are entirely different.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India Thru The Gen Mgr. N.C.R. & ... vs Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr on 18 April, 2014

He submitted that the decision in the case of Wazir Chand Vs. Union of India and others (supra) has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Madan Mohan Prasad (supra) and the Apex Court in this decision has observed that in none of the decisions, the actual import or the effect to the relevant rules regarding payment of DCRG had been considered.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Dr. Swaran Singh on 19 September, 2003

The acceptance of the normal licence fee, was the distinguishing feature in Gorakhpur University's case, the decision in Wazir Chand v. Union of India (2001) 6 SCC 596 was distinguished only on that basis, as can be seen from paragraph 5 of that decision. That was also a case where the son of the retired employee continued to be an employee of the employer. In the case on hand, there was no payment and acceptance of any regular or normal licence fee or tender of licence fee by the employee to the employer subsequent to the compulsory retirement of the respondent.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next