Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Swarn Lata vs Prasar Bharati, M/O Information And ... on 20 January, 2026 cites

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

13. It was contended that the applicant does not fall within the exceptions laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others, as the excess payment was not made for more than five years prior to the order of recovery and the recovery was effected on the basis of a specific undertaking. Reliance was also placed on DoP&T O.M. dated 02.03.2016 to submit that cases involving undertakings are excluded from protection against recovery.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

T.Vijaya Sekar vs Union Of India on 25 April, 2016

8. It was further contended that recovery from retiral dues such as leave encashment is impermissible in the absence of any statutory provision, especially when no disciplinary or criminal proceedings were pending against her. The applicant submitted that the undertaking relied upon by the respondents is of no legal consequence, as held in T. Vijayan Vs. Union of India & Others, decided by the Ernakulam Bench on 03.10.2018, wherein similar recovery was quashed despite an undertaking. The applicant also pleaded violation of principles of natural justice, as the reduction of pay and recovery were effected without any Digitally signed by MAMTA prior notice or opportunity of hearing, causing serious civil WADHWA consequences.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Sunder Lal And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 22 July, 1969

15. Reliance was placed on Sunder Lal & Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 P&H 241, and High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Others Vs. Jagdev Singh, Civil Appeal No.3500 of 2006 decided on 29.07.2016, to contend that an erroneous benefit can be corrected and recovery is permissible where an undertaking has been furnished. The respondents therefore prayed for dismissal of the Original Application. Digitally signed by MAMTA
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

25. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the respondents have rejected the representation of applicant merely on the basis of undertaking dated 07.06.2016 furnished by the applicant and there were no other ground taken by the respondents in deciding the claim. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election commissioner, New Delhi and Others, (1978) 1 SCC 405, wherein it has been held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that Digitally signed by MAMTA the action is to be judged by the reasons stated while making the WADHWA order and supplementary reasons in the shape of affidavits to be excluded. I have gone through the judgment relied upon by the 13- O.A. No. 1173/2019 applicant. From the perusal of material, I find that the factum of recovery of other six similarly situated persons/colleagues of the applicant by way of reply to the MA has been placed on record by the respondents, in rebuttal to the change of stand by the applicant from non involvement in pay fixation to no recovery from other employees. The respondents by way of reply to MA No. 99/2025 have placed on record details of recovery effected from the similarly situated persons. Therefore, the contention of applicant that the respondents have supplemented their stand with the additional affidavit is meritless and rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document

S Rajagopal vs Union Of India And Ors on 3 May, 2023

3. Subsequently, objections were raised by the department regarding fixation of pay of employees and proposals for recovery were initiated. One similarly situated employee challenged such recovery in O.A. No.310/01119/2015 titled A.S. Rajagopal Vs. Union of India & Others, which was allowed on 17.08.2015 (Annexure A-4) by holding that recovery was impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334. Thereafter, the respondent department issued letter dated 29.10.2015 (Annexure A-5) stating that the earlier instructions granting minimum of the upgraded scale were not in accordance with CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, followed by further instructions dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure A-6) regarding fixation by applying the fitment factor of 1.86.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S K Kait - Full Document
1