Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)Shyam Babu Verma vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1994
18. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly reveals that the
judgment detailed herein above, came to be passed after passing of
judgment dated 8.7.2013 by a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex
rt
Court, wherein three judge bench, having taken note of divergent
views/findings given by other Benches of Hon'ble Apex Court, in
Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521, Sahib Ram
v. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp(1) SCC 18 and Chandi Prasad
Uniyal & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand, Civil Appeal No. 5899 of 2012,
decided on 17.8.2012 , ... SCC 417, held that the observations made
by this court in Rafiq Masih supra, not to recover excess amount paid
to appellants in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 142 of
the Constitution of India, which vests power in this court to pass
equitable orders in the ends of justice."
Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008
"14. We may point out that in Syed Abdul Qadir case such a
direction was given keeping in view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of that case since the beneficiaries had either retired or
were on the verge of retirement and so as to avoid any hardship to them.
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India And Anr vs M. Bhaskar And Ors on 6 May, 1996
(1) SCC
18, Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC
521, Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, (1996) 4 SCC 416, V. Ganga
rt
Ram v. Director, (1997) 6 SCC 139, Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.)
Sumesh Kumar Rana vs State Of H.P. And Others on 3 April, 2023
In light of the aforesaid order passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court, though judgment dated 20.4.2010 passed by Hon'ble
Single Judge in Suresh Rana's case remained intact, save and except
the arrears, which were ordered to be restricted to three years prior to
the date of filing of the petition.
Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Manjeet Singh And Anr on 29 September, 2006
v.
Govt. of India, (2006) 11 SCC 709, Purshottam Lal Das v. State of
Bihar, (2006) 11 SCC 492, Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet
Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 647 and Bihar SEB v. Bijay Bahadur, (2000)
10 SCC 99."(emphasis is ours)
Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara vs The Govt. Of India & Ors on 10 October, 2006
relief against recovery. The matter being in the realm of judicial
discretion, courts may on the facts and circumstances of any
particular case refuse to grant such relief against
recovery."(emphasis is ours)
A perusal of the aforesaid observations made by this Court in Col. B.J.
Akkara's case (supra) reveals a reiteration of the legal position recorded
in the earlier judgments rendered by this Court, inasmuch as, it was again
affirmed, that the right to recover would be sustainable so long as the
of
same was not iniquitous or arbitrary. In the observation extracted above,
this Court also recorded, that recovery from employees in lower rung of
service, would result in extreme hardship to them. The apparent
rt
explanation for the aforesaid conclusion is, that employees in lower rung
of service would spend their entire earnings in the upkeep and welfare of
their family, and if such excess payment is allowed to be recovered from
them, it would cause them far more hardship, than the reciprocal gains to
the employer.
Thomas Daniel vs State Of Kerala . on 2 May, 2022
29. Hon'ble Apex Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala
reported in [2022 SCC Online SC 536], taking note of Rafiq Masih,
held the recovery from employees therein to be bad as the same was
not due to any mis-representation or fraud by them, rather was the
result of misinterpretation of the service rules and came to the notice of
the employer on being pointed out by the office of Accountant General.