Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.70 seconds)
Sakuntala Sahu vs Indian Council Of Medical Research on 21 January, 2026 cites

M.R. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1995

"3. ............Hence, according to him, there is no delay and, in argumendo, even if there is any delay, this being a recurring cause of action, delay should not stand on the way for the relief, unlike the present case, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, 1996 AIR 669. We have examined the matter, keeping in mind the facts and law stated above, and do not find any merit to uphold the stand point of the respondents that this OA being hit by limitation is liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 597 - J S Verma - Full Document

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

The DoP&T taking into consideration the decision in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, issued exhaustive guidelines vide OM dated 02.03.2016 on recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants. In the instant case, the applicant retired on 31.05.2019. He was communicated the office order showing the recovery on 31.07.2019. Respondents filed their counter on 25.09.2024 stating therein that they have not recovered any amount from the retiral dues of the applicant but withheld the same awaiting final decision of the competent authority without stating who is the competent authority to take a decision when counter has also been filed on behalf of Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. Hence, this submission of the respondents is held to be an arbitrary action on their part.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Gorakhpur University & Ors vs Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra & Ors on 7 August, 2001

"Stare Decisis et Non Queita Movere", in other words, to maintain the fairness, predictability, certainty, uniformity and stability in RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:57:29 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00365 of 2024 judicial decisions, the Court/Tribunal should stand by what has been decided and do not vary the decision unless, it is found on examination of any distinguished facts and law in both the cases. We find no reason to take a different view than the view already taken in the above cases, especially when the present case is fully covered and governed by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Gorakhpur University & Ors (supra) and Jogeshwar Sahoo (supra). Therefore, we hasten to quash the show cause notice dated 23.07.2021 issued to the applicant calling upon late G.D.Palai, the ex-employee concerned, being illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and it is quashed. As a consequence, the Respondents are directed to refund the actual withheld amount to the applicant within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We have gone through the decisions relied on by the applicant in support of payment of interest but we find that in the said cases since delay in release of the dues was attributable to the department interest was directed to be paid but that is not the case in hand. Hence, we refrain from passing any order for payment of any interest since the withholding of amount from DCRG cannot be said to be intentional or deliberate on the part of the respondents but for the reasons discussed above. However, we make it clear that in the event the amount is not paid to the applicant within the period stated above, the applicant shall be entitled to 12% interest per annum from the day one of expiry of sixty days till actual payable, which shall be recoverable from the officer/official responsible for the delay instead of bearing the excess payment towards interest from Govt. exchequer."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 166 - Full Document

State Of Kerala And Ors vs M. Padmanabhan Nair on 17 December, 1984

"We have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the respective parties before us. The earlier decision pertaining to this very university reported in 1996 (2) ESC 211 (All.) (supra) is that of a Division Bench rendered after considering the principles laid down and also placing reliance upon the decisions of this Court reported in 1994 (6) SCC 589 (supra) which, in turn, relied upon earlier decisions in State of Kerala vs M. Padmanabhan Nair [1985 (1) SCC 429] and AIR 1981 SC page 212 (Supra). This court has been repeatedly emphasizing the position that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. Withholding of quarters allotted, while in service, even after RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:57:29 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00365 of 2024 retirement without vacating the same has been viewed to be not a valid ground to withhold the disbursement of the terminal benefits. Such is the position with reference to amounts due towards Provident Fund, which is rendered immune from attachment and deduction or adjustment as against any other dues from the employee. In the context of this, mere reliance on behalf of the appellant upon yet another decision of a different Division Bench of the very High Court rendered without taking note of any of the earlier decisions of this court but merely proceeding to decide the issue upon equitable considerations of balancing conflicting claims of respective parties before it does not improve the case of the appellant any further. Reliance placed for the appellant university on the decision reported in JT 2000 Suppl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 545 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

B.H. Amar Venkatesh And Ors. vs Senior Superintendent Of Post Officers ... on 19 February, 2004

Therefore, according to the present applicant, the OA No. 542/2020 having been decided by the Single Bench without taking note of the decision in the case of B H AMAR Venkatesh & Ors (supra), facts noted above, and the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo (supra), the decision in OA No. 542/2020 has no application for allowing the present OA. Law of precedent requires that similar matter to be decided in similar line provided that the facts in both the cases are not distinguishable [Ref.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Durga Madhab Sundaray vs Union Of India & Others .... Opposite ... on 10 August, 2023

8. The respondents in their counter so also in hearing have put/laid much more emphasis on the earlier decision of this case in the case of Gopal Krushna Padhi (supra). According to them, the said case is akin to the case in hand and the same having been dismissed by this Bench, which has not been reversed by any higher forum, the OA is liable to be dismissed. We find that the order in OA No. 542/2020 was dismissed by the Single Bench.
Orissa High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - A K Mohapatra - Full Document
1