Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1491 (1.17 seconds)
Documents citing Shyam Babu Verma vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1994

Shri R.K.Bhatnagar (Retd. Os/Ii) vs Union Of India Through on 26 February, 2015

We also do not find it to be a mistaken case. Since the respondent was working in the Construction Organization throughout, he was given promotion there in the higher pay scale and his promotion was also not withdrawn at any point of time. Even presuming it to be a case of mistake, it cannot be said that such a mistake is attributable to the respondent. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, 1994 (27) ATC (SC) 121 and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 SCC (L&S) 248, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the petitioner could not make any recovery in respect of the alleged excess salary paid to him, that too after his retirement and from his retiral benefits.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Union Of India vs Anil Kumar Sinha on 22 January, 2026

12. A bare perusal of the aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) would show that the judgment rendered in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal has though been considered but has been departed from in view of the law laid down in a catena of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyam Babu Verma (supra), Sahib Ram (supra), M. Bhaskar (supra), B. Ganga Ram (supra), Bijay Bhadur (supra), Purshottam Lal Das (supra), B.J. Akkara (supra) and Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and accordingly based on the said decisions five situations have been summarized where though payments have been made mistakenly to the employees by the employers, in excess of their entitlement but recovery by the employers would be impermissible in law and one of such Patna High Court CWJC No.19257 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026 24/30 situation envisaged therein is "recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued".
Patna High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - M K Shah - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014

(emphasis is ours) It is apparent, that in Shyam Babu Verma's case (supra), the higher pay- scale commenced to be paid erroneously in 1973. The same was sought to be recovered in 1984, i.e., after a period of 11 years. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court felt that the recovery after several years of the implementation of the pay-scale would not be just and proper. We therefore hereby hold, recovery of excess payments discovered after five years would be iniquitous and arbitrary, and as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 14 May, 2025

18. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly reveals that the judgment detailed herein above, came to be passed af- ter passing of judgment dated 8.7.2013 by a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein three judge bench, having taken note of divergent views/findings given by other Benches of Hon'ble Apex Court, in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp(1) SCC 18 and Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand, Civil Appeal No. 5899 of 2012, decided on 17.8.2012 , ... SCC 417, held that the ob- servations made by this court in Rafiq Masih supra, not to recover excess amount paid to appellants in exercise of ex- traordinary jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India, which vests power in this court to pass equitable or- ders in the ends of justice."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Nitya Nand Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 2023

18. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly reveals that the judgment detailed herein above, came to be passed after passing of judgment dated 8.7.2013 by a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex rt Court, wherein three judge bench, having taken note of divergent views/findings given by other Benches of Hon'ble Apex Court, in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp(1) SCC 18 and Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand, Civil Appeal No. 5899 of 2012, decided on 17.8.2012 , ... SCC 417, held that the observations made by this court in Rafiq Masih supra, not to recover excess amount paid to appellants in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India, which vests power in this court to pass equitable orders in the ends of justice."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Nitya Nand Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 2023

18. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly reveals that the judgment detailed herein above, came to be passed after passing of judgment dated 8.7.2013 by a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex rt Court, wherein three judge bench, having taken note of divergent views/findings given by other Benches of Hon'ble Apex Court, in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp(1) SCC 18 and Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand, Civil Appeal No. 5899 of 2012, decided on 17.8.2012 , ... SCC 417, held that the observations made by this court in Rafiq Masih supra, not to recover excess amount paid to appellants in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India, which vests power in this court to pass equitable orders in the ends of justice."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Nitya Nand Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 2023

18. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly reveals that the judgment detailed herein above, came to be passed after passing of judgment dated 8.7.2013 by a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex rt Court, wherein three judge bench, having taken note of divergent views/findings given by other Benches of Hon'ble Apex Court, in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp(1) SCC 18 and Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand, Civil Appeal No. 5899 of 2012, decided on 17.8.2012 , ... SCC 417, held that the observations made by this court in Rafiq Masih supra, not to recover excess amount paid to appellants in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India, which vests power in this court to pass equitable orders in the ends of justice."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Nitya Nand Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 2023

18. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly reveals that the judgment detailed herein above, came to be passed after passing of judgment dated 8.7.2013 by a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex rt Court, wherein three judge bench, having taken note of divergent views/findings given by other Benches of Hon'ble Apex Court, in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp(1) SCC 18 and Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand, Civil Appeal No. 5899 of 2012, decided on 17.8.2012 , ... SCC 417, held that the observations made by this court in Rafiq Masih supra, not to recover excess amount paid to appellants in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India, which vests power in this court to pass equitable orders in the ends of justice."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next