Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.48 seconds)Thomas Daniel vs State Of Kerala . on 2 May, 2022
In that case, this Court has
already held that in view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & others Vs. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and in
Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
536, excess amount, if any, paid to the petitioners of those cases
cannot be recovered. The petitioners in the sense are similarly
situated persons.
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered this aspect of recovery from Government
employee and in para 18 of the judgment observed as follows:-
Suresh Chandra Tewari And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 February, 2022
43. The directions that were passed in the instant case by
the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the First Writ Petition on
19.09.1991 were quite extensive. Almost all the benefits were given
to the petitioners. Even when the judgment dated 19.09.1991 was
reviewed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court by order dated
12.07.1994, still the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had directed to
pay the increments to the petitioners, whereas in the case of
Suresh Chandra Tewari (supra), it was directed that the petitioner
in that case be paid emoluments in the same scale of pay in which
the other regularly appointed tubewell operators are being paid and
43
based on it, when ACP was granted, that was upheld in the case of
Raj Kumar Pal (supra) by this Court.
The U.P. Forests Corporation Act, 1974
The Vice Chairman Delhi Development ... vs Narender Kumar on 8 March, 2022
In the case of Narender Kumar (supra), reference has
been made to para 20 of the judgment, which is as follows:-
Section 74 in THE UTTAR PRADESH REORGANISATION ACT, 2000 [Entire Act]
Ram Naresh Rawat vs Sri Ashwini Ray And Ors on 15 December, 2016
39. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has referred to the
judgment in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), in which case
the Hon'ble Supreme Court while answering to a question posed
has held that temporary employee shall be entitled to minimum of
pay scale but without increments. That is a general rule, but in the
instant case, there have been orders dated 19.09.1991 and
12.07.1994, of the Hon'ble Allahabad Court, passed in the First
Writ Petition, that the petitioners be paid increment also, which
have attained finality.
Munnu Lal Trivedi And 7 Ors. vs The State Of U.P.Thru.Prin. Secy. ... on 24 August, 2022
In the case of Munna Lal Trivedi (supra), the case was
decided based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad Court
passed in the case of Suresh Chandra Tiwari & others v. State of
U.P. & others (WP No. 3558 (SS) of 1992), which was upheld in the
special appeal also. In the SLP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed
order as to from which date the petitioner would be entitled to the
benefits.
State Of Uttarakhand And Another ... ... vs Bhuwan Chandra Pathak on 15 September, 2020
"regular service" of the employee. But, instant is definitely a distinct
case. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Bhuwan
Chandra Pant (supra) has upheld the decision of the writ court for
granting ACP and other benefits w.e.f. date of regularization, but for
pensionary benefits prior services were counted. But, in that case,
there was no order of any court.