Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)
Ghanshyam Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2018 cites

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana vs Jagdev Singh on 29 July, 2016

In the said judgment the Court distinguished the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) on the pretext that if a person belong to Group-C retired from the service and given his undertaking, which cannot be equated with the undertaking given by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), which was dealt with in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra). It was further held that the undertaking is not specific to the recovery, however, it cannot be relied upon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 921 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

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

11. The issue regarding recovery from a retired employee also came for consideration in the case of Om Prakash Verma Vs. State of M.P. & others reported in 2017(3) MPLJ 175 whereby the Single Bench of this Court quashed the recovery distinguishing the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) stating that the said judgment only deals proposition No. (ii) of the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and do not apply for other propositions particularly to the case of Group-C and Group-D employees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chandrashwar Prasad Singh on 15 December, 2017

The Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in Mohammed Yusuf (supra) distinguished the ratio of the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) on facts reiterated in the undertaking, if any, given by the Civil Judge, as was the case before the Supreme Court, would not apply in the case of Group-C employees, while Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandrashwar Prasad Singh (supra) distinguished the same taking a view that if any undertaking has been obtained from an employee at the time of availing the benefit of pay fixation, it cannot be said to be voluntary act on his part because the said employee was having no option except to give such undertaking, it cannot be made the basis for sustaining the recovery.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Vijay Shankar Trivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 January, 2018

In counter, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in 2014 (4) SCC 334, Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Maharana Pratap Agriculture & Technology and another decided on 24.11.2016 by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur in Civil Special Appeal (W) No.349/2014 and in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh decided on 15.12.2017 by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1232/2017 and all these cases have been considered by this Court 2 in case of Vijay Shankar Trivedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others in W.P. No.2395/2017 decided on 17.01.2018 wherein this Court has held as under:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

Manoj Kumar Soni vs Pramukh Sachiv on 21 June, 2016

11. The issue regarding recovery from a retired employee also came for consideration in the case of Om Prakash Verma Vs. State of M.P. & others reported in 2017(3) MPLJ 175 whereby the Single Bench of this Court quashed the recovery distinguishing the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) stating that the said judgment only deals proposition No. (ii) of the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and do not apply for other propositions particularly to the case of Group-C and Group-D employees.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Kedar Nath Motani And Ors. vs Prahlad Rai And Ors. on 25 September, 1959

In Kedar Nath Motani and others v. Prahlad Rai and others, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 861 reversing the High Court and restoring the decree passed by the trial court declaring the appellants' title to the lands in suit and directing the respondents who were the appellants' benamidars to restore possession, this Court, after discussing the English and Indian law on the subject, said (at page
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 100 - Full Document
1