Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 237 (1.94 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs S. R. Dhingra And Others on 14 December, 2007

Harbans Singh vs Govt. Of Nctd on 12 May, 2026

32. Union of India vs. S.R. Dhingra, (2008) 2 SCC 229 (relied upon by Respondents): The respondents contend that a mistake does not confer any legal right and erroneous fixation can be corrected. While this is correct in the abstract, it must be noted that the correction of pay scale for the future may be permissible in appropriate cases, but that does not automatically justify recovery of amounts already paid to innocent employees over many years. Moreover, S.R. Dhingra was dealing with erroneous promotion based on wrong interpretation of rules. In the present case, the applicants were not promoted to a higher grade - they were recruited in the very pay scale that the respondents had offered. The propositions in S.R. Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR Dhingra do not assist the respondents so far as recovery is concerned, which is squarely governed by the constitutional principles enunciated in Rafiq Masih.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr.N.Jagannathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 April, 2010

18. Again, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. S.R.Dhingra [(2008) 2 SCC 229] relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application. That was a case about the fixation of cut-off date for introducing pension pay under a retirement scheme and when the cut off date was arbitrarily fixed, the said clause depriving the right of getting pension, was held to be unreasonable. On the facts of the present case, when there is no such scale available on the Government side, there is no justification for the petitioner to demand the same as a matter of right. As stated above, in any event, the impugned Government order has nothing to do with the prospective or retrospective nature of the benefit conferred on the group of individuals, and it is only a matter of solatium given to the petitioner as a special case, whose pre-revised scale of pay does not find a place in the pay scales of the Government servants as per V Pay Commission the benefits of which were sought to be given to the petitioner and other common cadre officers of the second respondent sugar mills.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next