Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
23. Further in the case in hand before making payment
of pension the petitioners were put to notice and the petitioners
had already furnished undertaking that they would refund the
excess amount paid and thus they are bound by the undertaking.
Patna High Court CWJC No.288 of 2023 dt.05-01-2024
18/19
The aforesaid proposition has well explained and propounded
by a 3-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jagdeo Singh (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court taking note of
the earlier judgment rendered in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra)
has held that in case where officers to whom payment was made
in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any
payment found to have been made in excess would be required
to be refunded, the officer furnished an undertaking while
opting for the revised pay scale, he is bound by the undertaking.
Thomas Daniel vs State Of Kerala . on 2 May, 2022
21. After careful examination of the judgments
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. The
State of Haryana [1995 supp (1) SCC 18]; Syed Abdul Kadir
Vs The State of Bihar [(2009) 3 SCC 475], Rafiq Masih (supra)
as also the Thomas Daniel (supra), it goes without saying that
the mandate of the Supreme Court not to recover the excess
amount is based upon equity, in case the excess payment was
not made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of
Patna High Court CWJC No.288 of 2023 dt.05-01-2024
16/19
the employee or made by the employer by applying a wrong
principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a
particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently
found to be erroneous or where court arrives at the conclusion
that the recovery if made from the employee would be
iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far
outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to
recover.
Sahib Ram vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 19 September, 1994
21. After careful examination of the judgments
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. The
State of Haryana [1995 supp (1) SCC 18]; Syed Abdul Kadir
Vs The State of Bihar [(2009) 3 SCC 475], Rafiq Masih (supra)
as also the Thomas Daniel (supra), it goes without saying that
the mandate of the Supreme Court not to recover the excess
amount is based upon equity, in case the excess payment was
not made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of
Patna High Court CWJC No.288 of 2023 dt.05-01-2024
16/19
the employee or made by the employer by applying a wrong
principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a
particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently
found to be erroneous or where court arrives at the conclusion
that the recovery if made from the employee would be
iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far
outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to
recover.
Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008
21. After careful examination of the judgments
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. The
State of Haryana [1995 supp (1) SCC 18]; Syed Abdul Kadir
Vs The State of Bihar [(2009) 3 SCC 475], Rafiq Masih (supra)
as also the Thomas Daniel (supra), it goes without saying that
the mandate of the Supreme Court not to recover the excess
amount is based upon equity, in case the excess payment was
not made on account of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of
Patna High Court CWJC No.288 of 2023 dt.05-01-2024
16/19
the employee or made by the employer by applying a wrong
principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a
particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently
found to be erroneous or where court arrives at the conclusion
that the recovery if made from the employee would be
iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far
outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to
recover.
Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 17 September, 1992
19. He further made reliance on a Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Smt. Janaki Devi Vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 14346 of 2019) and further
Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and
Md. Yasin Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.(CWJC Nos.
13085 of 2021 and 14025 of 2021), copies, whereof have been
put on record by Annexures F and G to the counter affidavit.
1