Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008
(iii). This Court in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar held as
follows:
Jai Dev Gupta vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 3 September, 1997
"It has been observed that various claims regarding
allowing of higher pay scale, selection grade, special pay
and other financial benefits are being preferred by the
of
employees and such claims are decided by the Hon'ble
Tribunals/Courts in favour of applicants with retrospective
effect, causing many problems such as payment of arrears,
rt
step up of pay of senior employees etc. etc.
The matter has been examined in consultation with
the Law Department in the light of the judgment delivered
by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Jai Devi Gupta
vs. State of HP reported in AIR 1998 SC 2819 and it has been
decided that as and when any dispute is taken to Court or
Tribunal by an employee in respect of his pay scale or
selection grade or other allowances, etc., the replying
respondent should invariably take a defence on the strength
of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jai Dev
Gupta Vs. State of HP reported in AIR 1998 SC 2819 that the
arrears/back wages should be restricted for a period of
three years only. In case the Hon'ble Tribunal or court do not
agree with the defence of the government/department the
matter should be agitated before the higher court by way of
approximate remedy. This may be brought to the notice of
all concerned."
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
rt
Bahadur, 2000 10 SCC 99."
Shyam Babu Verma vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1994
In this context, reference
may also be made to the decision rendered by this Court in
Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, 1994 2 SCC 521,
wherein this Court observed as under:
Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara vs The Govt. Of India & Ors on 10 October, 2006
Court in Col. B.J. Akkara's case 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
of
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
rt
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.