Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (3.88 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Kerala vs Vinod Kumar C.R on 1 July, 2020

M.S.Muraleedhara Warrier vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 18 June, 2025

Therefore, relying on the judgment of this Court in Rafiq Masih's case as well as Vinod Kumar's case cited supra, I am of the view that the recovery now made from the DCRG of the petitioner is absolutely without any basis. The Devaswom Board was also not able to produce any document whereby the liability has been fixed and intimated to the petitioner before the retirement.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Assistant General Manager vs S. Saradamani on 25 May, 2021

30. The effect of the judgment in Jagdev Singh (supra) on the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra) was considered by the O.P.(CAT) No.110/2020 15 Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and others v. Vinod Kumar C.R. [2020 (4) KLT 230] and State of Kerala and others v. Abraham P.Joseph [2021 (2) KLT 288] and held that the Apex Court in Jagdev Singh (supra) has not interfered with the directions contained in paragraph 18 of the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra) regarding Clauses (i), (iii), (iv) and (v).
Kerala High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - K Babu - Full Document

K.K. Ramachandra Panicker vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2026

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), TRIVANDRUM [2024 KHC ONLINE 603] Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN KANJIRAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS [2017 KHC 882] Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN KASARGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ANOTHER VS. RADHA K.A. & ANOTHER [2016 (1) KHC 260] Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS VS. VINOD KUMAR C.R. [2020 KHC 468] Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS VS. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) [2014 KHC 4818] Exhibit P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BE COURT IN A.K. FRANCIS VS. JOINT REGISTRAR [1990 KHC 411] Exhibit P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAW OF RESPONDENT NO.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.K. Ramachandra Panicker vs State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2026

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), TRIVANDRUM [2024 KHC ONLINE 603] Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN KANJIRAPPALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS [2017 KHC 882] Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN KASARGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ANOTHER VS. RADHA K.A. & ANOTHER [2016 (1) KHC 260] Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS VS. VINOD KUMAR C.R. [2020 KHC 468] Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS VS. RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) [2014 KHC 4818] Exhibit P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULING OF THIS HON'BE COURT IN A.K. FRANCIS VS. JOINT REGISTRAR [1990 KHC 411] Exhibit P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAW OF RESPONDENT NO.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Abraham P. Joseph on 28 January, 2021

" .......... .......... ......... On a reading of both Rafiq Masih and Jagdev Singh, it is difficult for us to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that Jagdev Singh is a complete departure from the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih. From a reading of paragraphs 10 and 11 of Jagdev Singh, it appears to us that the Supreme Court had only clarified that in the case of recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, there would be no bar in ordering recovery, if the employee concerned had executed an undertaking agreeing to refund any excess payment. We cannot read Jagdev Singh as having laid down the proposition that in every case where there is an undertaking as aforesaid, recovery can be ordered from the employee concerned whatever be the point of time that such payment was made. We cannot overlook the fact that there is not even a suggestion in Jagdev Singh that in the event of there being an undertaking to refund excess pay, none of the situations envisaged as items (i) to (v) of Rafiq Masih can be pressed into service.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - T R Ravi - Full Document

Geetha.S vs State Of Kerala on 3 August, 2021

"" .......... .......... ......... On a reading of both Rafiq Masih and Jagdev Singh, it is difficult for us to accept the contention of the learned Government Pleader that Jagdev Singh is a complete departure from the principles laid down in Rafiq Masih. From a reading of paragraphs 10 and 11 of Jagdev Singh, it appears to us that the Supreme Court had only clarified that in the case of recovery from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, there would be no bar in ordering recovery, if the employee concerned had executed an undertaking agreeing to refund any excess payment. We cannot read Jagdev Singh as having laid down the proposition that in every case where there is an undertaking as aforesaid, recovery can be ordered from the employee concerned whatever be the point of time that such payment was made. We cannot overlook the fact that there is not even a suggestion in Jagdev Singh that in the event of there being an undertaking to refund excess pay, none of the situations envisaged as items (i) to (v) of Rafiq Masih can be pressed into service. "
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document
1   2 3 Next