Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.18 seconds)
Raksha Devi vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 January, 2017 cites

Dev Raj Gupta vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 2 November, 2000

Thereafter, the present petition was filed in the year 2014 stating that the same are illegal in view of the judgments of Budh Ram Versus State of Haryana and others, 2009 (3) SCT 333 FB on the basis of the judgment of the similarly situated persons in CWP No.10277 of 2010 titled as Vijay Pal Sachar and others Vs. State of Punjab and others and For Subsequent orders see RA-CW-166-2017 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-07-2017 14:22:01 ::: CWP No.19002 of 2014 -2- CWP No. 10153 of 2010 titled as Dev Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 27.05.2010.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana vs Jagdev Singh on 29 July, 2016

In the present case, 18 years proficiency step up was given to the petitioner from the earlier date. The petitioner gave in writing in the year 2006 to the department at the time of retirement that the recovery, if any, be effected from the arrears and her retrial benefit released. First of all, there is a delay of 8 years in challenging the impugned order of recovery and the petition is barred by delay and laches. Further, the recently judgment of the Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh CWP No. 3500 of 2006, decided on 29.07.2016 has held that the judgment of High Court which set aside the action of recovery is unsustainable. As the officer had furnished an undertaking while opting for revised pay scale that any payment found to have been made in excess would be refunded. Therefore, he is bound by the undertaking.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 921 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1