Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Jagdish Prasad Prajapat vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 21 April, 2015

Unknown vs Union Of India Through Its General ... on 6 December, 2016

6. Concededly, the relevant absence period of the applicant was later on converted into extra ordinary leave and as per point 530 of Railway Establishment Code (Vol - I), no increment can be earned during extra ordinary leave period. Inadvertently, the applicant was allowed increment for said period, which was subsequently rectified by respondents by passing impugned order as per settled law, if there is mistake, Authorities are allowed to rectify it as and when the same comes to their notice. This is so held in the case of Jagdish Prajapat vs. the State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1998 (2) ATJ 286 and in U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Narendar Singh 2008 (2) SCC 756. Since applicant has not disputed that he cannot earn increment during that period, therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders dated 03.06.2014 and 24.08.2015. The O.A. is therefore dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kamal Sharma vs Survey Of India on 23 May, 2019

4. The O.A. is resisted by respondents by filing a detailed reply. They submit that while retaining accommodation at last place of posting, the applicants were not entitled to HRA and as such drawal of same is not permissible and, therefore, to rectify the error, the impugned orders have been passed and recovery of such amount is permissible from persons like applicants. They submit that drawal of double HRA is permissible to the employees posted to North-East region only. Moreover, it is audit authorities who have pointed out about irregularity and as such action of respondents is as per rules and law. They submit that as per Department of Personnel & Training O.M dated 11.8.2016, Jammu District is not covered for grant of package of concession, which is available to Anantnag, Baramulla, Budgam, Kupwara, Pulwama, Srinagar, Kulgam, Shopian, Ganderbal and Bandipura. Thus, no right is vested in applicants on the basis of an error which can always be corrected and (OA.NO. 060/00688/2018 & Anr Kamal Sharma etc. VS. UOI ETC.) 5 recovery is also permissible in view of law laid down in JAGDISH PRAJAPAT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS, 1998 (2) ATJ, 286 and HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VS. JAGDEV SINGH, JT 2016 (7) SC 409. The pleadings in other case on both sides are on similar lines.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dalbara Singh vs Survey Of India on 23 May, 2019

4. The O.A. is resisted by respondents by filing a detailed reply. They submit that while retaining accommodation at last place of posting, the applicants were not entitled to HRA and as such drawal of same is not permissible and, therefore, to rectify the error, the impugned orders have been passed and recovery of such amount is permissible from persons like applicants. They submit that drawal of double HRA is permissible to the employees posted to North-East region only. Moreover, it is audit authorities who have pointed out about irregularity and as such action of respondents is as per rules and law. They submit that as per Department of Personnel & Training O.M dated 11.8.2016, Jammu District is not covered for grant of package of concession, which is available to Anantnag, Baramulla, Budgam, Kupwara, Pulwama, Srinagar, Kulgam, Shopian, Ganderbal and Bandipura. Thus, no right is vested in applicants on the basis of an error which can always be corrected and (OA.NO. 060/00688/2018 & Anr Kamal Sharma etc. VS. UOI ETC.) 5 recovery is also permissible in view of law laid down in JAGDISH PRAJAPAT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS, 1998 (2) ATJ, 286 and HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VS. JAGDEV SINGH, JT 2016 (7) SC 409. The pleadings in other case on both sides are on similar lines.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amar Nath vs Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, M/O Youth ... on 13 August, 2019

9. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the instructions dated 26.2.2009, contains a decision, which cannot be applied retrospectively to the cases already settled in the past and the case of the applicants stands settled and cannot be opened now as it would amount to taking away their vested rights. A perusal of the instructions would disclose that it is in the nature of a clarification only, which would apparently take effect from the date of its original decision. In fact, this letter is in the nature of correcting an error which had taken place in the past while granting higher pay scales to the applicants. Apparently, even the colleagues of the applicants working in the Administrative offices have not been granted this higher pay scales, as was given to the applicants. Realizing that it was an error, the corrective action was taken, in consonance with principles of natural justice. Inadvertently, the applicants were allowed higher pay scales under ACP Scheme, which was subsequently rectified by respondents by passing impugned orders. As per settled law, if there is mistake, authorities are allowed to rectify it as and when the same comes to their notice. This is so held in the case of JAGDISH PRAJAPAT VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 1998 (2) ATJ 286 and in U.O.I. & ORS. VS. 6 NARENDAR SINGH 2008 (2) SCC 756. One cannot claim that if something has been granted wrongly or due to an administrative error,
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Devi Singh Thakur vs Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, M/O Youth ... on 13 August, 2019

9. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the instructions dated 26.2.2009, contains a decision, which cannot be applied retrospectively to the cases already settled in the past and the case of the applicants stands settled and cannot be opened now as it would amount to taking away their vested rights. A perusal of the instructions would disclose that it is in the nature of a clarification only, which would apparently take effect from the date of its original decision. In fact, this letter is in the nature of correcting an error which had taken place in the past while granting higher pay scales to the applicants. Apparently, even the colleagues of the applicants working in the Administrative offices have not been granted this higher pay scales, as was given to the applicants. Realizing that it was an error, the corrective action was taken, in consonance with principles of natural justice. Inadvertently, the applicants were allowed higher pay scales under ACP Scheme, which was subsequently rectified by respondents by passing impugned orders. As per settled law, if there is mistake, authorities are allowed to rectify it as and when the same comes to their notice. This is so held in the case of JAGDISH PRAJAPAT VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 1998 (2) ATJ 286 and in U.O.I. & ORS. VS. 6 NARENDAR SINGH 2008 (2) SCC 756. One cannot claim that if something has been granted wrongly or due to an administrative error,
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Kumar Sawhney vs Department Of Telecommunication on 20 November, 2017

In the wake of Rule 86 of Financial Hand Book, Volume I and the relevant audit para (Annexures R-1 and R-2 respectively), the Competent Authority is well within its jurisdiction to rectify the factual mistake and recover the excess amount, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the cases of Jagdish Prajapat Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Others, 1998 (2) ATJ 286, Anand Prakash Vs. State of Punjab, 2005 (4) RSJ 749, Raj Kumar Batra Vs. State of Haryana, 1992 (1) SCT, 129, Chandigarh Administration Vs. Narang Singh, JT 1997 (3) SC 536 and G. Srinivas Vs. Government of A.P. & Ors (2005) 13 SCC 712.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document
1   2 3 Next