Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Parthanil Roy vs Indian Statistical Institute And Ors on 24 February, 2025 cites

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

In the instant case, the Indian Statistical Institute had taken a contrary stand and had always been insisting to send the entire issue of recovery to the concerned ministry grossly suppressing the Department of Expenditure's clarification in this regard which had been recorded in the proceedings of the Council Meeting mentioned above. Such conduct was deplorable and showed the mala fide on the part of the respondent authorities. On the other hand, the alleged excess payment had been made for nearly 13 years before the impugned office order bearing No. PU/720/PAY-FIX/1193 dated 13.05.2024 was issued. This time gap 7 exceeded the threshold of 5 years in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, as well as of 10 years in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala 2022 SCC Online SC 536. As such, no recovery of the alleged excess payment claimed by ISI was legally feasible. The impugned Office Order bearing No. PU/720/PAY-FIX/1193 dated 13.05.2024 disclosed no reason as to why the explanation offered by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and besides, the same being cryptic, the impugned order was violative of principles of natural justice as it did not provide the materials such "1) Relevant portion of the Inspection Report of CAG on the accounts of ISI for the year 2014-15. 2) The complaint that had been received via Central Vigilance Commission in this context" which formed the purported basis of such order. The purported Audit Observation Reference 11 (OBS-1162169) could not be made a basis to deny the accrued right of the petitioner when the same was not sacrosanct and having no force at all and such delayed observation should not be given any credence at all. Reliance was placed on an unreported judgement of this High Court dated 30.04.2024 passed in WPO 1586 of 2023. The impugned order if allowed to be implemented would cause an immediate monthly loss of about Rs. 11,000/- and it would also carry forward for several years as the IIT Bombay will fix the pay on the basis of his pay at Indian Statistical Institute, as mentioned in the Terms and Conditions attached to the offer letter from IIT Bombay numbered AO/HR-1 (HRM-1)/33/2024 dated 26.03.2024. The petitioner submitted the 3 months' notice for technical resignation to ISI with an intent to join IIT Bombay as per the terms and conditions of the said offer letter and was thus eligible for pay 8 protection. As such, the suggestion of the Indian Statistical Institute that the petitioner would not suffer any loss was completely misconstrued and the same was mala fide. The petitioner did not play any role regarding his selection process, more particularly fixation of his pay scale, and there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner which prompted the respondent authorities concerned to grant such pay fixation so as to make recovery of the alleged excess payment. There was also no evidence to suggest that the then director who granted such pay fixation was subjected to any disciplinary proceeding or even a show cause. Assuming, but not admitting, that he was given a punishment of censure as alleged in the affidavit in opposition, the nature of punishment imposed on the previous Director also suggested that the alleged proven misconduct therein was not considered by the Institute to be a serious one. Thus, the action of the respondent authorities clearly demonstrated bias and smacked of malice. As such, the same was mala fide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Thomas Daniel vs State Of Kerala . on 2 May, 2022

In the instant case, the Indian Statistical Institute had taken a contrary stand and had always been insisting to send the entire issue of recovery to the concerned ministry grossly suppressing the Department of Expenditure's clarification in this regard which had been recorded in the proceedings of the Council Meeting mentioned above. Such conduct was deplorable and showed the mala fide on the part of the respondent authorities. On the other hand, the alleged excess payment had been made for nearly 13 years before the impugned office order bearing No. PU/720/PAY-FIX/1193 dated 13.05.2024 was issued. This time gap 7 exceeded the threshold of 5 years in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, as well as of 10 years in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala 2022 SCC Online SC 536. As such, no recovery of the alleged excess payment claimed by ISI was legally feasible. The impugned Office Order bearing No. PU/720/PAY-FIX/1193 dated 13.05.2024 disclosed no reason as to why the explanation offered by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and besides, the same being cryptic, the impugned order was violative of principles of natural justice as it did not provide the materials such "1) Relevant portion of the Inspection Report of CAG on the accounts of ISI for the year 2014-15. 2) The complaint that had been received via Central Vigilance Commission in this context" which formed the purported basis of such order. The purported Audit Observation Reference 11 (OBS-1162169) could not be made a basis to deny the accrued right of the petitioner when the same was not sacrosanct and having no force at all and such delayed observation should not be given any credence at all. Reliance was placed on an unreported judgement of this High Court dated 30.04.2024 passed in WPO 1586 of 2023. The impugned order if allowed to be implemented would cause an immediate monthly loss of about Rs. 11,000/- and it would also carry forward for several years as the IIT Bombay will fix the pay on the basis of his pay at Indian Statistical Institute, as mentioned in the Terms and Conditions attached to the offer letter from IIT Bombay numbered AO/HR-1 (HRM-1)/33/2024 dated 26.03.2024. The petitioner submitted the 3 months' notice for technical resignation to ISI with an intent to join IIT Bombay as per the terms and conditions of the said offer letter and was thus eligible for pay 8 protection. As such, the suggestion of the Indian Statistical Institute that the petitioner would not suffer any loss was completely misconstrued and the same was mala fide. The petitioner did not play any role regarding his selection process, more particularly fixation of his pay scale, and there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner which prompted the respondent authorities concerned to grant such pay fixation so as to make recovery of the alleged excess payment. There was also no evidence to suggest that the then director who granted such pay fixation was subjected to any disciplinary proceeding or even a show cause. Assuming, but not admitting, that he was given a punishment of censure as alleged in the affidavit in opposition, the nature of punishment imposed on the previous Director also suggested that the alleged proven misconduct therein was not considered by the Institute to be a serious one. Thus, the action of the respondent authorities clearly demonstrated bias and smacked of malice. As such, the same was mala fide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 267 - S A Nazeer - Full Document
1