Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.79 seconds)State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
"3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer)
reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334, has held that recovery from
the pensioners, for the mistake committed by the Department,
is impermissible in law. Moreover, any order of recovery
without prior notice to the pensioner would be in violation
of the principles of natural justice and this legal position
has been ratified in the various decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well this Court. As such, the present
unilateral action of recovery without notice also is in violation
of the principles of natural justice. On both these grounds, the
petitioner is entitled to succeed.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 17 August, 2012
It requires to be pointed out here that the aforesaid
decision passed by the Two Judges Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, relied by the learned
Counsel for the Petitioner, is a consequential order to
the earlier order passed by a Three Judges Bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the same case
in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer ) [(2014) 8
SCC 883), in which it has been ruled that there is no
principle that any excess payment to employees could
not be recovered and the earlier decisions in Registrar
of Co-operative Societies, Haryana vs Israil Khan [(2010) 1
SCC 440] and Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs State of Uttarakhand
10 OA /310/01487/2016
[(2012) 8 SCC 417), supporting that view have been
approved. It has also been explained therein that
directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
exercise of powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution, relaxing the application of law, was in
view of the peculiar circumstances which do not
comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore, do not
make binding precedent.
Telecom District Manager And Others vs Keshab Deb on 6 May, 2008
19. The said issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Telecom District Manager & Others Vs Keshab Deb reported
in (2008) 8 SCC 402 and the relevant para is extracted below:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M. Kandan vs Indian Bank on 3 August, 2018
In the case of M. Kandan v. Indian Bank, it was held that,
"6.
Union Of India And Anr vs M. Bhaskar And Ors on 6 May, 1996
1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of
India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27
ATC 121] , Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC
416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. Regional
Jt. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652] ):
Gangubai Garad (L.Rs.)Balasaheb vs Mahadu Gangaram (L.Rs.)Prayagbai & ... on 27 April, 2020
1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of
India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27
ATC 121] , Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC
416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. Regional
Jt. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652] ):