Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Ashok Kumar Khandelwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026 cites

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Jagdish Prasad Dubey on 11 April, 2018

Full Bench of this Court, in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Jadish Prasad Dubey and others (supra) has answered the question No.3 by holding that the undertaking given by the employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is forced and the same is not forcible in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another (1986) 3 SCC 136, unless the undertaking is given voluntarily meaning thereby that if undertaking is given voluntarily, recovery is permissible and if undertaking is forced, then no recovery is permissible.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

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

In absence of any specific undertaking at the time of making payment of such amount i.e. 04/02/1992, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) . Undertaking was furnished by petitioner after his retirement & he did not furnish any undertaking at the time of extending the benefits of pay to him i.e. 04/02/1992. Thus, it is clear that undertaking was furnished by petitioner at the time of retirement and he did not furnish any undertaking at the time of extending the benefit of pay to him. The undertaking furnished by petitioner at the time of his retirement cannot be said to be an undertaking for which recovery of excess payment which has been made long back would become effective. The said undertaking would not benefit the respondents and the recovery being made from the petitioner is consequently illegal
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

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

In the matter of High Court of Punjab and Haryana Vs. Jagdev Singh (supra), the Apex Court has held that if any undertaking is submitted at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay, the amount is refundable to the Government or the same is adjustable in future, and therefore, the action of the respondent/Department appears to be correct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 921 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986

Full Bench of this Court, in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Jadish Prasad Dubey and others (supra) has answered the question No.3 by holding that the undertaking given by the employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is forced and the same is not forcible in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another (1986) 3 SCC 136, unless the undertaking is given voluntarily meaning thereby that if undertaking is given voluntarily, recovery is permissible and if undertaking is forced, then no recovery is permissible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 111 - Cited by 1191 - D P Madon - Full Document
1