Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs Mohd.Rafiq & Ors on 3 October, 2019

Barsu vs Rafiq Mohd on 14 July, 2022

In view of the aforesaid discussion, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, yet in the following situations, recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

No. 174/12 vs Rafiq Mohd on 14 July, 2022

In view of the aforesaid discussion, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, yet in the following situations, recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Barsu vs Rafiq Mohd on 14 July, 2022

In view of the aforesaid discussion, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih's case (supra), it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, yet in the following situations, recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balh Distt. Mandi H.P vs Rafiq Mohd. And on 20 September, 2022

a) That recovery order as annexed as P-3 may kindly be set aside being ultra virus, illegal and arbitrary to the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Hon'ble Court and respondents be directed to release the whole amount of leave encashment alongwith the interest @ 9% from 01.03.2019 to till its realization as per the latest law of Apex Court held in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Mohd. And followed by this Hon'ble Court in CWPOA No. 3145/2019.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nand Lal vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 4 April, 2025

By that time, petitioner had retired from the respondent­department. He superannuated as Fitter on 30.11.2016. Vide order dated 21.04.2017, the respondents sought to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner by adjusting the same against payment of Death­cum­ Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) due to him. Accordingly DCRG was paid to the petitioner after effecting recovery of Rs.1,38,251/­ Petitioner feels aggrieved against this action & has instituted this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:­ "a. That recovery order as Annexed as p­2 may kindly be set aside being ultra virus, illegal and arbitrary to the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court and respondents be directed to release the whole amount of leave encashment along with ­3­ the interest @ of 9% from 1.12.2016 to till its realization as per the latest law of Apex Court held in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Mohd and followed by this Hon'ble Court in CWPOA No. 3145 of 2019.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - J R Dua - Full Document

Inder Singh (Rtd. Beldar) vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 20 September, 2023

"(i) That recovery order as Annexed as P-2 may kindly be set aside being ultra virus, illegal and arbitrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and respondents be directed to release the whole amount of leave encashment alongwith the interest @ 9% from 1.2.2019 to till its realization as per the latest law of Apex Court held in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Mohd and followed by this Hon'ble Apex Court in CWPOA No.3145 of 2019."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Decided On 18Th November vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 18 November, 2024

a) "That recovery order as Annexed as P-2 may kindly be set aside being ultra-virus, illegal and arbitrary to the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court and respondent be directed to release the whole amount of leave encashment along with the interest @ of Rs.9% from 01.02.2021 to till its realization as per the latest law of Apex Court held in State of Punjab versus Rafiq Mohd. and followed by this Hon'ble Court in CWPOA No.3145 of 2019.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A M Goel - Full Document

Ashok Kumar vs State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief ... on 7 January, 2021

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the impugned orders will indicate that they are absolutely non-speaking in nature and are also against the law enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Mohd. Rafiq Mashi reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 since, the orders do not indicate any fraud, manipulation or misrepresentation on the part of petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner has superannuated from service on 31.12.2017 but has not yet been paid the post retiral benefits.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document
1