Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014 cites

Shyam Babu Verma vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1994

(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 8 - Cited by 850 - N P Singh - Full Document

Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008

(emphasis is ours) Premised on the legal proposition considered above, namely, whether on the touchstone of equity and arbitrariness, the extract of the judgment reproduced above, culls out yet another consideration, which would make the process of recovery iniquitous and arbitrary. It is apparent from the conclusions drawn in Syed Abdul Qadir's case (supra), that recovery of excess payments, made from employees who have retired from service, or are close to their retirement, would entail extremely harsh consequences outweighing the monetary gains by the employer. It cannot be forgotten, that a retired employee or an employee about to retire, is a class apart from those who have sufficient service to their credit, before their retirement. Needless to mention, that at retirement, an employee is past his youth, his needs are far in excess of what they were when he was younger. Despite that, his earnings have substantially dwindled (or would substantially be reduced on his retirement). Keeping the aforesaid circumstances in mind, we are satisfied that recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary, if it is sought to be made after the date of retirement, or soon before retirement. A period within one year from the date of superannuation, in our considered view, should be accepted as the period during which the recovery should be treated as iniquitous. Therefore, it would be justified to treat an order of recovery, on account of wrongful payment made to an employee, as arbitrary, if the recovery is sought to be made after the employee's retirement, or within one year of the date of his retirement on superannuation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 2121 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara vs The Govt. Of India & Ors on 10 October, 2006

(emphasis is ours) A perusal of the aforesaid observations made by this Court in Col. B.J. Akkara's case (supra) reveals a reiteration of the legal position recorded in the earlier judgments rendered by this Court, inasmuch as, it was again affirmed, that the right to recover would be sustainable so long as the same was not iniquitous or arbitrary. In the observation extracted above, this Court also recorded, that recovery from employees in lower rung of service, would result in extreme hardship to them. The apparent explanation for the aforesaid conclusion is, that employees in lower rung of service would spend their entire earnings in the upkeep and welfare of their family, and if such excess payment is allowed to be recovered from them, it would cause them far more hardship, than the reciprocal gains to the employer. We are therefore satisfied in concluding, that such recovery from employees belonging to the lower rungs (i.e., Class-III and Class-IV - sometimes denoted as Group 'C' and Group 'D') of service, should not be subjected to the ordeal of any recovery, even though they were beneficiaries of receiving higher emoluments, than were due to them. Such recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary and therefore would also breach the mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 230 - Full Document

Sahib Ram vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 19 September, 1994

"58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 988 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 17 August, 2012

1 SCC 18; and on the other hand in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 417, we are of the view that the remaining special leave petitions should be placed before a Bench of Three Judges. The Registry is accordingly directed to place the file of the remaining special leave petitions before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for taking instructions for the constitution of a Bench of three Judges, to adjudicate upon the present controversy."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1165 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document
1