Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.51 seconds)
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Shri Ramdhan Gupta And Anr. on 15 February, 2019 cites

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

6. Mr. Dutt, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent was not a Class III or Class IV employee. He received retiral dues to the tune of Rs. 32 lakhs and, therefore, the deduction of Rs. 1,97,253/- was not so grave as to cause undue hardship to him. He had no legal right to retain the said amount as it was inadvertently paid to him. He, W.P.(C.) No.1558/2019 Page 2 of 6 therefore, submits that the decision in Rafiq Masih 2 could not be invoked in this case. He further submits that in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2014) 8 SCC 883, (hereinafter referred as Rafiq Masih 1), the three-judge - Bench to which the matter was referred to resolve an apparent conflict between Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, on one hand, and Chandi Prasad Uniyal V. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417, on the other hand, observed that the orders issued in Shyam Babu Verma (supra) were in exercise of the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Shyam Babu Verma vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1994

6. Mr. Dutt, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent was not a Class III or Class IV employee. He received retiral dues to the tune of Rs. 32 lakhs and, therefore, the deduction of Rs. 1,97,253/- was not so grave as to cause undue hardship to him. He had no legal right to retain the said amount as it was inadvertently paid to him. He, W.P.(C.) No.1558/2019 Page 2 of 6 therefore, submits that the decision in Rafiq Masih 2 could not be invoked in this case. He further submits that in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2014) 8 SCC 883, (hereinafter referred as Rafiq Masih 1), the three-judge - Bench to which the matter was referred to resolve an apparent conflict between Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18, on one hand, and Chandi Prasad Uniyal V. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417, on the other hand, observed that the orders issued in Shyam Babu Verma (supra) were in exercise of the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 850 - N P Singh - Full Document

Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 17 August, 2012

Thus, according to Mr. Dutt, it is the judgment in Chandi Prasad Uniyal (supra) which forms the binding precedent. He submits that only the Supreme Court could pass an order - by resort to Article 142 of the Constitution, to deny the right of the employer to recover the amounts paid erroneously, which the employee has no legal right to retain or appropriate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1165 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document
1