Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.87 seconds)Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shyam Babu Verma vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1994
(emphasis is ours)
It is apparent, that in Shyam Babu Verma's case (supra), the higher pay-
scale commenced to be paid erroneously in 1973. The same was sought to be
recovered in 1984, i.e., after a period of 11 years. In the aforesaid
circumstances, this Court felt that the recovery after several years of the
implementation of the pay-scale would not be just and proper. We therefore
hereby hold, recovery of excess payments discovered after five years would
be iniquitous and arbitrary, and as such, violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008
(emphasis is ours)
Premised on the legal proposition considered above, namely, whether on the
touchstone of equity and arbitrariness, the extract of the judgment
reproduced above, culls out yet another consideration, which would make the
process of recovery iniquitous and arbitrary. It is apparent from the
conclusions drawn in Syed Abdul Qadir's case (supra), that recovery of
excess payments, made from employees who have retired from service, or are
close to their retirement, would entail extremely harsh consequences
outweighing the monetary gains by the employer. It cannot be forgotten,
that a retired employee or an employee about to retire, is a class apart
from those who have sufficient service to their credit, before their
retirement. Needless to mention, that at retirement, an employee is past
his youth, his needs are far in excess of what they were when he was
younger. Despite that, his earnings have substantially dwindled (or would
substantially be reduced on his retirement). Keeping the aforesaid
circumstances in mind, we are satisfied that recovery would be iniquitous
and arbitrary, if it is sought to be made after the date of retirement, or
soon before retirement. A period within one year from the date of
superannuation, in our considered view, should be accepted as the period
during which the recovery should be treated as iniquitous. Therefore, it
would be justified to treat an order of recovery, on account of wrongful
payment made to an employee, as arbitrary, if the recovery is sought to be
made after the employee's retirement, or within one year of the date of his
retirement on superannuation.
Union Of India And Anr vs M. Bhaskar And Ors on 6 May, 1996
(1) SCC 18, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of
India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, (1996) 4 SCC 416, V.
Ganga Ram v. Director, (1997) 6 SCC 139, Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.)
Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Manjeet Singh And Anr on 29 September, 2006
v. Govt.
of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of Bihar, (2006)
11 SCC 492, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 647 and
Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bahadur, (2000) 10 SCC 99."
Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara vs The Govt. Of India & Ors on 10 October, 2006
(emphasis is ours)
A perusal of the aforesaid observations made by this Court in Col. B.J.
Akkara's case (supra) reveals a reiteration of the legal position recorded
in the earlier judgments rendered by this Court, inasmuch as, it was again
affirmed, that the right to recover would be sustainable so long as the
same was not iniquitous or arbitrary. In the observation extracted above,
this Court also recorded, that recovery from employees in lower rung of
service, would result in extreme hardship to them. The apparent
explanation for the aforesaid conclusion is, that employees in lower rung
of service would spend their entire earnings in the upkeep and welfare of
their family, and if such excess payment is allowed to be recovered from
them, it would cause them far more hardship, than the reciprocal gains to
the employer. We are therefore satisfied in concluding, that such recovery
from employees belonging to the lower rungs (i.e., Class-III and Class-IV -
sometimes denoted as Group 'C' and Group 'D') of service, should not be
subjected to the ordeal of any recovery, even though they were
beneficiaries of receiving higher emoluments, than were due to them. Such
recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary and therefore would also breach
the mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 17 August, 2012
1 SCC 18; and on the
other hand in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand &
Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 417, we are of the view that the remaining special leave
petitions should be placed before a Bench of Three Judges. The
Registry is accordingly directed to place the file of the remaining special
leave petitions before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for taking
instructions for the constitution of a Bench of three Judges, to
adjudicate upon the present controversy."