Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Dr.Anand Parkash vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 11 January, 2010

Jagir Ram vs M/O Railways on 9 October, 2019

In 2005 (4) RSJ, 749 (ANAND PRAKASH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB) and 1992 (1) SCT, 129, RAJ KUMAR BATRA VS. STATE OF HARYANA, it has been held that as and when a mistake is detected, the employer is within its right to rectify it. In (2005) 13 (G. SRINIVAS VS. GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.) it has been held that an order passed by mistake or ignorance of relevant fact can be reviewed by the authority. In that view of the matter, I find that the respondents have not committed any error in correcting an error.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amrit Pal vs Gm N.Rly on 9 October, 2019

In 2005 (4) RSJ, 749 (ANAND PRAKASH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB) and 1992 (1) SCT, 129, RAJ KUMAR BATRA VS. STATE OF HARYANA, it has been held that as and when a mistake is detected, the employer is within its right to rectify it. In (2005) 13 (G. SRINIVAS VS. GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.) it has been held that an order passed by mistake or (OA.No. 060/00188/2018- Amrit Pal Vs. UOI etc.) 5 ignorance of relevant fact can be reviewed by the authority. In that view of the matter, I find that the respondents have not committed any error in correcting an admitted mistake.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 13 - 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

Shamsher Singh Hooda vs Pg Institute Of Medical Education And ... on 17 December, 2018

He has also placed reliance, in this behalf, on the judgments passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Anand Parkash Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2005 (3) SCT 531 and Tarjit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2006 (1) SCT 86. He further alleged that the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order without putting the applicant on notice is in violation of principle of natural justice.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Devinder Singh Son Of Shri Bhagwan Singh vs Union Of India Through on 24 February, 2014

Similarly, in 2005 (4) RSJ, 749 (Anand Prakash Vs. State of Punjab) and 1992 (1) SCT, 129, Raj Kumar Batra Vs. State of Haryana, it has been held that as and when a mistake is detected, the employer is within its right to rectify it. In (2005) 13 (G. Srinivas Vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors.) as well, it has been held that an order passed by mistake or ignorance of relevant fact can be reviewed by the authority.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next