Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Patel Ushaben Kamleshbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 28 September, 2022 cites

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr vs Bpl Mobile Cellular Ltd. & Ors on 14 May, 2008

5 Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates, as far as the first issue with regard to the legality of the recovery order dated 01.04.2021 is concerned, perusal of the impugned order indicates that reference is made to a communication dated 19.03.2015, letter dated 16.08.2019 and letter dated 18.07.2020. As far as the communication dated 19.03.2015 is concerned, the same has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2015 in Special Civil Application No. 6549 of 2015. The other communications of 2019 and 2020 indicated that recovery proceedings are to be initiated in respect of those lecturers to whom the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission had been granted without approval of the State Government. Such lecturers have not initiated any legal proceedings in the Court of Law. What is evident on reading the order of recovery is that it seeks to recover the benefits granted to the petitioner of the 6th Pay Commission which the petitioner has earned for having worked for a period from 01.01.2006 to 2009. Independent of the communications referred to in the impugned order, even if the stand of the respondents is accepted that they were paid erroneously for which reliance has been placed on a communication dated 20.07.2019 and February 2015, what is evident is that, in case of the petitioner the payscales were granted and the same was verified by the verification authorities as is evident from the pay verification communication dated 27.05.2011 Page 12 of 16 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 30 20:32:51 IST 2022 C/SCA/6312/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/09/2022 (Annexure'E', page 32 of the petition). Therefore, apart from the recovery being grossly belated and initiated after more than 12 years after the petitioner had secured such benefits, even if it is a mistake, the same cannot be corrected after such a long time. The order, therefore, on this count also needs to be quashed and set aside. The judgement in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. BPL Cellular Ltd., is not applicable as discussed hereinabove.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 48 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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

4.4 Mr.Kurven Desai, learned AGP, relied on a decision as far as recovery is concerned in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh., reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267., to submit that once the petitioner had given an undertaking, she cannot now turn around and challenge the orders of recovery. 4.5 In rejoinder to this, Mr.Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the communications of Page 11 of 16 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 30 20:32:51 IST 2022 C/SCA/6312/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/09/2022 the GPSC are read out of context. The Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal was dealing with the right of the adhoc lecturers being continued in service and it was in this context that the communication of the GPSC has to be read. It is undisputed that by the resolution of 03.08.2011, lecturers like the petitioner who had continued to be in adhoc service without any break got the benefit of continuity of their past services. The stand of the department therefore is misconceived.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 921 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1