Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)State Of Punjab vs Jagdip Singh & Ors on 19 September, 1963
The decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh, on which also reliance has been placed, does nto seem to be of much assistance to the appellant. Of course, this decision does lay down that it is always the substance of the order, which is to be seen, and nto the words in which it is framed. Even so, it does nto seem to help the appellant very much.
Trojan & Co. Ltd vs Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar on 20 March, 1953
(5) The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, very seriously argued that the retrospective operation of the impugned order would mean that he would be called upon to refund the salary, received by him for the last several years. The plea does nto seem to have been raised in the plaint with the result that it has nto been tried in the Courts below. The respondent's learned counsel has referred me to Messrs. Trojan and Co. V. Nagappa Chettiar, which lays down that the decision of a case cannto be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found; and further that without an amendment of the plaint, the Court is nto entitled to grant the relief nto asked for. The proportion laid down by the Supreme Court is well recognised.
Harbans Lal Amar Chand vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 8 March, 1965
Support for this submission has been sought from a Single Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in the Harbans Lal Amar Chand v. State of Punjab, . But in that decision all that was held was, so far as helpful to the appellant, that the direction, as to refund of salary received earlier on account of a provisional promtoion, which was later cancelled, was hit by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The reported case does nto support the appellant's submission that he should be considered to have been substantively appointed a skilled labourer.
Benukar Mahata vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 27 March, 1963
The respondent's counsel has also referred me to a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Benukar Mahata v. State of West Bengal according to which the Government servants have no legal right to a revision of their scale of pay, which in the first place, is a matter of contract and secondly, it is subject to rules that may be framed from time to time. This decision is also an authority for the view that reduction, resulting from a normal administrative decision to correct a mistake, does nto involve any penalty and, therefore, does nto attract Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In the present case, it is urged that only a mistake has been rectified and such rectification does nto involve any unconstitutional infirmity. In my view, this challenge is difficult to sustain on the pleadings of the parties. It would, however, be open to the plaintiff, to seek whatever remedy is open to him under the law, when the respondent seeks to enforce or claim a refund of the salary, already received by him, years ago. The claim to such a refund may be contested on cogent legal grounds but that contingency would arise when such a right is enforced. In the present suit, I am afraid, it is nto open to this Court to go into this matter, because all that is claimed in the plaint is a declaration in regard to the illegality of the order dated 3rd January, 1962, reducing the plaintiff's salary, as violative of Article 311 of the Constitution. In regard to the refund of salary, received by the plaintiff in the past, no relief is claimed and indeed for that relief no cause of action is alleged in the plaint.
1