Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)
Sudha Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 13 October, 2025 cites

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

15. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-18 of Rafiq Masih (Supra), which is reiterated in Thomas Daniel (Supra) squarely apply to the facts of the present case and it is clear that recovery of excess payments cannot be enforced against a Class-IV employee in the Patna High Court CWJC No.8506 of 2024 dt.13-10-2025 19/19 absence of any fraud or misrepresentation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

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

"27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7-6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 :1994 SCC (L&S) 683: (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar (1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. R[egional Jt. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]):
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 988 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Thomas Daniel vs State Of Kerala . on 2 May, 2022

15. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-18 of Rafiq Masih (Supra), which is reiterated in Thomas Daniel (Supra) squarely apply to the facts of the present case and it is clear that recovery of excess payments cannot be enforced against a Class-IV employee in the Patna High Court CWJC No.8506 of 2024 dt.13-10-2025 19/19 absence of any fraud or misrepresentation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 267 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr vs M. Bhaskar And Ors on 6 May, 1996

"27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7-6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 :1994 SCC (L&S) 683: (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar (1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. R[egional Jt. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]):
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 446 - Full Document

Gangubai Garad (L.Rs.)Balasaheb vs Mahadu Gangaram (L.Rs.)Prayagbai & ... on 27 April, 2020

"27. The last question to be considered is whether relief should be granted against the recovery of the excess payments made on account of the wrong interpretation/understanding of the circular dated 7-6-1999. This Court has consistently granted relief against recovery of excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances from an employee, if the following conditions are fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 :1994 SCC (L&S) 683: (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar (1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967] and V. Gangaram v. R[egional Jt. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652]):
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 39 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

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

In Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar excess payment was sought to be recovered which was made to the appellants-teachers on account of mistake and wrong interpretation of prevailing Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. The appellants therein contended that even if it were to be held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of additional increment on promotion, the excess amount should not be recovered from them, it having been paid without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The Court held that the appellants cannot be held responsible in such a situation and recovery of the excess payment should not be ordered, especially when the employee has subsequently retired. The court observed that in general parlance, recovery is prohibited by courts where there exists no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and when the excess payment has been made by applying a wrong interpretation/understanding of a Patna High Court CWJC No.8506 of 2024 dt.13-10-2025 16/19 Rule or Order. It was held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 2121 - B N Agrawal - Full Document
1