Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.83 seconds)
Dr. Hs Shivaprakash vs Jawaharlal Nehru University on 20 December, 2023 cites

Sahib Ram vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 19 September, 1994

In Sahib Ram case [Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248] , a mistake was committed by wrongly extending to the appellants the revised pay scale, by relaxing the prescribed educational qualifications, even though the appellants Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 829/2022 Page 12 of 17 Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Signing Date:26.12.2023 17:24:20 concerned were ineligible for the same. The appellants concerned were held not eligible for the higher scale, by applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work". This Court, in the above circumstances, did not allow the recovery of the excess payment. This was apparently done because this Court felt that the employees were entitled to wages, for the post against which they had discharged their duties. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that it would be iniquitous and arbitrary for an employer to require an employee to refund the wages of a higher post, against which he had wrongfully been permitted to work, though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 988 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008

35. The question of recovery of the excess amount given to an employee came up again before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 475, whereby the Hon'ble Court termed the recovery without fault of an employee as illegal and directed the state of Bihar to refund the recovered amount. The relevant parts are reproduced herein:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 2121 - B N Agrawal - 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 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 BabuVerma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 829/2022 Page 9 of 17 Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Signing Date:26.12.2023 17:24:20 ATC 121] , Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 446 - Full Document

Shyam Babu Verma vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1994

34. A similar situation came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyam BabuVerma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, where the petitioner's pay grade was re-fixed after 11 years. While analysing the situation, the Hon'ble Court had directed the respondent employer to not recover the excess amount as the petitioner was not at fault. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 850 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next