Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
Union Of India And Anr vs Gulshan Raj And Ors on 6 January, 2021 cites

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 WP(C) 11015/2020 Page 3 of 4 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 (1) SCC 18 : 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] , V. Gangaram v. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652] , Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 988 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr vs M. Bhaskar And Ors on 6 May, 1996

"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 WP(C) 11015/2020 Page 3 of 4 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 (1) SCC 18 : 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] , V. Gangaram v. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652] , Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 446 - Full Document

Gangubai Garad (L.Rs.)Balasaheb vs Mahadu Gangaram (L.Rs.)Prayagbai & ... on 27 April, 2020

"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 WP(C) 11015/2020 Page 3 of 4 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 (1) SCC 18 : 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] , V. Gangaram v. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652] , Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.)
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 39 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

J.S. Sandhu And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 14 May, 2002

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30th November, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT') in O.A.No.1502/2018. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:- 3, 8 "3. The applicants relied upon a judgment in OA No.497/2015 delivered on 01.08.2017 on exactly similar matter wherein the recoveries were quashed. The judgment in this OA has also relied upon another judgment in t he case of Shri J.S. Sharma and others Vs. Union of India and another, OA No.363/2012, decided on 05.02.2013, wherein also exactly similar issue was raised and the Tribunal, vide order dated 05.02.2013, held that no recovery can be made towards the transport allowance already paid. This judgment was challenged by the respondents in the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5555/2013 decided on 04.09.2013.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1