Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)
Babu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2024 cites

Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986

In a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as (1986) 3 SCC 136 (Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another), a condition in the appointment letter that the Corporation could terminate the services of the employees without prior notice if it was satisfied that the employee was unfit medically or was guilty of any subordination in respect of other misconduct, was found to be illegal. The Supreme Court held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 111 - Cited by 1191 - D P Madon - Full Document

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

9. He has also placed reliance in the matter of Vijay Shankar Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.2395/2017 decided on 17.1.2018) wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court while referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh (W.A.No.1232/2017 decided 15.12.2017) had taken a view that the undertaking which has been discussed in the matter of Jagdev Singh was with regard to Class I employee and the case of Class III and Class IV employee were not considered in the aforesaid judgment, therefore, in the case of Class III and Class IV the said judgment would not be applicable as well as the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) is a judgment on proposition no. (ii) of the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and proposition No. (ii) deals with the recovery from retired Government employees or the employees who are due to retire within one year from the order of recovery, and therefore, would not apply in the case of Group C and Group D employees and in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur in Civil Special Appeal (W) No.349/2014 (Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Maharana Pratap Agriculture & Technology and another) decided on 24.11.2016 had held that even though there was an undertaking given by Class III employee the same was not to be considered in the light of the judgment Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 18-11-2024 06:07:06 PM 7 of Jagdev Singh (supra) as the said judgment was distinguishable on facts and he has further placed reliance in the matter of M.P. Medical Officers Association Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2023 1 JLJ 118, where the Apex Court had taken a view that when the employees are not at fault at the time of pay fixation then the recovery should not be initiated against him and in the light of judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) the Apex Court had quashed the recovery for Class III employee.
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

9. He has also placed reliance in the matter of Vijay Shankar Trivedi Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.2395/2017 decided on 17.1.2018) wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court while referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Chandrashwar Prasad Singh (W.A.No.1232/2017 decided 15.12.2017) had taken a view that the undertaking which has been discussed in the matter of Jagdev Singh was with regard to Class I employee and the case of Class III and Class IV employee were not considered in the aforesaid judgment, therefore, in the case of Class III and Class IV the said judgment would not be applicable as well as the judgment of Jagdev Singh (supra) is a judgment on proposition no. (ii) of the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) and proposition No. (ii) deals with the recovery from retired Government employees or the employees who are due to retire within one year from the order of recovery, and therefore, would not apply in the case of Group C and Group D employees and in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur in Civil Special Appeal (W) No.349/2014 (Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Maharana Pratap Agriculture & Technology and another) decided on 24.11.2016 had held that even though there was an undertaking given by Class III employee the same was not to be considered in the light of the judgment Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 18-11-2024 06:07:06 PM 7 of Jagdev Singh (supra) as the said judgment was distinguishable on facts and he has further placed reliance in the matter of M.P. Medical Officers Association Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2023 1 JLJ 118, where the Apex Court had taken a view that when the employees are not at fault at the time of pay fixation then the recovery should not be initiated against him and in the light of judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) the Apex Court had quashed the recovery for Class III employee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 921 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Kedar Nath Motani And Ors. vs Prahlad Rai And Ors. on 25 September, 1959

In Kedar Nath Motani and others v. Prahlad Rai and others, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 861 reversing the High Court and restoring the decree passed by the trial court declaring the appellants' title to the lands in suit and directing the respondents who were the appellants' benamidars to restore possession, this Court, after discussing the English and Indian law on the subject, said (at page 873):
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 100 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Jagdish Prasad Dubey on 11 April, 2018

He had further referred to Full Bench decision of this Court in the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey (supra) and while taking this Court to the answer given to the question no.3 has submitted that though the Full Bench in specific terms has held that undertaking given by an employee at the time of grant of financial benefits on account of refixation of pay is a forced undertaking and is therefore not enforceable, the Full Bench had further observed that said eventuality shall not be applicable if the undertaking is given voluntarily and as the petitioner could not demonstrate that the undertaking given by him at the time of his pay fixation in the year 1996 was under coercion it cannot be said that in the light of the judgment which has been cited it was not voluntarily, thus, the contention of the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008

18. From the aforesaid enunciation, the legal position which is culled out is that recovery from pensionary benefits can be effected on the basis of undertaking or the indemnity bond given by the employee before the grant of benefit of pay refixation but before that question of hardship of a Government servant has to be taken note of in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 and also the time period as fixed in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 is required to be followed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 2121 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

State Of M.P vs Mayaram Patidar on 21 July, 2014

"The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 20/3/10 by which the respondents have revised the pay fixation of the petitioner and the earlier benefit of pay fixation by applying FR 22D have been withdrawn. The contention of the petitioner is that he was promoted from the post of LDT to UDT in the same pay scale and the benefit of FR 22D was conferred upon him on account of his promotion vide order dt.31/12/02. The contention of the petitioner is that the benefit of FR 22 D was rightly conferred upon him by the respondents keeping in view the judgment delivered by this court in the case of State of MP Vs. Dayaram Patidar and one another WP No.1104/2001 dt.4/10/02 .
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 173 - Full Document
1   2 Next