Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
Jyoti Nathani vs M/O Defence on 12 January, 2018 cites

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

12. Clause (ii) of para 18 of the above decision categorically held that recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery is completely impermissible in law. Hence, that being the decision and observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is the force of law in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and no authority has any power to ignore the law 12 laid down by the Apex Court. Even the undertaking will not be of any help to the respondent-bank as it clearly mentions that the letter of undertaking is pertaining to the payment of pension under PPO.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

A.C. Joseph vs Principal Controller Of Defence ... on 14 March, 2017

6. The respondent-bank (respondent no.2) has filed their counter affidavit and contested the OA. The respondent- bank has questioned the legality of filing the instant OA before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent- bank argued that the applicant should have filed it before another forum and not before this Tribunal. He further argued that the bank is bound by the RBI instructions/guidelines and is fully authorized for making 6 recoveries of excess amount if wrongly paid to the pensioner, like the applicant. The argument of the counsel for the respondent-bank was that the applicant had given an undertaking to the effect that in case any overpayment is made, the bank has a right to recover the same. He also argued that in banking system, it is not the natural justice which is paramount to be taken into account. At this stage, to controvert the argument of the respondent-bank, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of A.C. Joseph vs. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) & Ors.[OA No.180/00859/ 2016 decided on 14.03.2017] wherein the Tribunal in equivocal term decided that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the cases pertaining to recoveries/deductions from pension. It is undisputed that the subject matter involved in this OA pertains to excess payment which has been made on account of some errors committed by the respondent-bank, which is nothing but an Agent of the Pension Sanctioning Authority for disbursement of pension amount to the pensioners being the statutory duty entrusted to the respondent-bank under the Government of India Scheme regulated by the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the respondent- 7 bank that the applicant should have filed this case before another forum cannot be accepted being misplaced as the bank is only a mechanism for disbursing the pension to the applicant on behalf of the employer to whom she has given her services throughout the service career.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1