Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.52 seconds)
K Sudheendran vs M/O Defence on 1 September, 2021 cites

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

In effect, argument by learned counsel for the applicant is that recoveries such as in these two matters which are being intended to be made after a period of 19 years and where there is no involvement of the employee in payment of the said excess amount and where there was no fraud, misrepresentation or any other involvement of the employee, are definitely iniquitous and arbitrary and bound to be struck down by the ratio of Rafiq Masih (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

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

15. In response learned counsel for the respondents in O.A.No.180/71/2017 has argued that not only the promotion structure has been changed, the applicant now has been recommended for higher grade pay of Rs.4200/- and is therefore getting the benefit of more promotions in the new structure. The applicant has also accepted the revised promotion norms and has exercised his option for fixing his pay as per the new norms. He had agreed to refund the overpayment as per his undertaking. Further, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267, the dictum laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra) is not applicable in this matter in the light of undertaking given at Annexure R-2. The case of the applicant is different from the contents of DoPT O.M dated 02.03.2016, which is about non recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants unintentionally by employer or employee. On the other hand, the promotion of the applicant was preponed due to the change in cadre management and career advancement policy by the Government. Thus the recovery to be made is inevitable considering the larger interest of the cadre. The case of the applicants thus does not come within the purview of the aforesaid DoPT -17- O.M. Further, in the case of the applicant in O.A.No.180/71/2017, it is to be noted that he was only notionally promoted with effect from 01.04.2008 and his enhanced pay and allowances were allowed only from the date when he had actually promoted as CMD Grade I, ie. during October 2009. The pay and allowance of a person promoted can only be given from the actual date of assuming duty or as indicated in the department orders. As such the applicant's claim that he is eligible for payment from 01.04.2008 is not justifiable in the light of promotion orders issued to him only on 14.10.2009, as evidenced by Annexure R-3 produced in the reply statement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 921 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1