Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (2.05 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
(h) The learned counsels have also brought to the notice of this Court
the order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of
Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Maharana Pratap Agriculture and Technology
University, Civil Special Appeal (W) No.349 of 2004 decided on
24.11.2016 wherein it was held that the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra)
is required to be taken into consideration and consequently the recovery
order was quashed.
Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986
(c) Question No.3 is answered by holding that the undertaking given
by the employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on
account of refixation of pay is a forced undertaking and is
51
therefore not enforceable in the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water
Transport Corporation Limited (supra) unless the undertaking is
given voluntarily.
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chandrashwar Prasad Singh on 15 December, 2017
30. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh and others v. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh : Writ Appeal No.1232
of 2017 decided on 15.12.2017 held that since an employee had no option
but to give an undertaking so as to avail the benefit of pay fixation, it
cannot be said to be a voluntary act. Therefore, such an undertaking
cannot be made the basis of sustaining the recovery.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
High Court Of Punjab & Haryana vs Jagdev Singh on 29 July, 2016
26. The guidelines would indicate that an undertaking has to be
furnished by the employee to the effect that he will refund the excess
payment made to him. It is only on furnishing of such an undertaking,
the payment towards revision of pay would be made to him.
Therefore, this goes to indicate that an undertaking is required to be
furnished at the time when the revision of pay has taken place. The same
is also reflected in the judgment in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra).
Therefore, the undertaking which is being furnished at the time of
extending the benefits of revision of pay to an employee is required to be
taken note of. The indemnity bond in the form of an undertaking
furnished at the fag end of service career cannot be said to be an
undertaking for which the recovery of excess payment which has been
made decades ago could become effective.