Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)

State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr on 27 April, 2000

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners had also advanced the argument predicated on Article 14 of the Constitution of India alleging that in the Registrar General's Office, higher pay was given to their counterparts. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that merely because higher pay-scale was given by the Registrar General's Office, which was a result of wrong fixation, Article 14 could not be pressed into service as one wrong committed at one place would not create a right at another place for another person and referred to the judgments of State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad and Ors. SLJ 2000 (1) SC 478, Gursharan Singh and Ors v. NDMC and Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 459, Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors. . The Tribunal gave partial relief by directing that if the excess amount was paid by mistake, that should not be recovered from the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 788 - Full Document

Gursharan Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors on 2 February, 1996

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners had also advanced the argument predicated on Article 14 of the Constitution of India alleging that in the Registrar General's Office, higher pay was given to their counterparts. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that merely because higher pay-scale was given by the Registrar General's Office, which was a result of wrong fixation, Article 14 could not be pressed into service as one wrong committed at one place would not create a right at another place for another person and referred to the judgments of State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad and Ors. SLJ 2000 (1) SC 478, Gursharan Singh and Ors v. NDMC and Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 459, Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors. . The Tribunal gave partial relief by directing that if the excess amount was paid by mistake, that should not be recovered from the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 360 - N P Singh - Full Document

Secretary, Jaipur Development ... vs Daulat Mal Jain on 20 September, 1996

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners had also advanced the argument predicated on Article 14 of the Constitution of India alleging that in the Registrar General's Office, higher pay was given to their counterparts. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that merely because higher pay-scale was given by the Registrar General's Office, which was a result of wrong fixation, Article 14 could not be pressed into service as one wrong committed at one place would not create a right at another place for another person and referred to the judgments of State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad and Ors. SLJ 2000 (1) SC 478, Gursharan Singh and Ors v. NDMC and Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 459, Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors. . The Tribunal gave partial relief by directing that if the excess amount was paid by mistake, that should not be recovered from the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 344 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1