Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Benukar Mahata vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 27 March, 1963

Sunder Lal And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 22 July, 1969

37. The view that I have taken is amply supported by authority. It was held by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Benukar Mahata v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 Cal 563, that in order that the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution might be attracted, the reduction in rank had to be by way of imposition of penalty. Where such reduction resulted from a normal step taken in the course of office administration to rectify an error or a mistake and there was no penalty involved in the readjustment, there was no reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution and the procedure prescribed in Clause (2) of Article 311 need not be followed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

Harbans Lal Amar Chand vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 8 March, 1965

11. The next argument of the learned counsel was that this action by the Department was not being taken by way of punishment for reasons personal to the petitioners but on account of administrative adjustments consequential on the revision of the seniority list. This was in effect scrapping the provisional promotion order from the date from which it took effect, according to the provisions made in the order itself. Reliance for this submission was placed on two authorities, namely, Benukar Mahata v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 Cal 563, and State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh, AIR 1964 SC 521.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Labh Singh Waryam Singh vs Union Of India Through The General ... on 22 December, 1966

The respondent's counsel has also referred me to a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Benukar Mahata v. State of West Bengal according to which the Government servants have no legal right to a revision of their scale of pay, which in the first place, is a matter of contract and secondly, it is subject to rules that may be framed from time to time. This decision is also an authority for the view that reduction, resulting from a normal administrative decision to correct a mistake, does nto involve any penalty and, therefore, does nto attract Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In the present case, it is urged that only a mistake has been rectified and such rectification does nto involve any unconstitutional infirmity. In my view, this challenge is difficult to sustain on the pleadings of the parties. It would, however, be open to the plaintiff, to seek whatever remedy is open to him under the law, when the respondent seeks to enforce or claim a refund of the salary, already received by him, years ago. The claim to such a refund may be contested on cogent legal grounds but that contingency would arise when such a right is enforced. In the present suit, I am afraid, it is nto open to this Court to go into this matter, because all that is claimed in the plaint is a declaration in regard to the illegality of the order dated 3rd January, 1962, reducing the plaintiff's salary, as violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. In regard to the refund of salary, received by the plaintiff in the past, no relief is claimed and indeed for that relief no cause of action is alleged in the plaint.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - I D Dua - Full Document
1