Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 17 August, 2012
35. Further, the applicant has canvassed that even if the Court
comes to the conclusion that the rules exist and applicable to the
applicant requiring re-fixation of pay, there cannot be any recovery
from the applicant, as the re-fixation is after a lapse of more than 5
years and the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant as
it is not their mistake or there was any criminality involved by which
the applicant manipulated or mis-represented the facts and caused any
wrong fixation of her pay. Hence, the applicant contends that they
must get the benefit of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in State of
Punjab & Ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. in Civil
Appeal No.11527 of 2014 [(2015) 4 SCC 334] (arising out SLP
No.11684/2012) and in the case Chadi Prasad Uniyal And Ors. v.
State of Uttarakhand And Ors., 2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012 8SCC
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
We are of the considered opinion
that the benefits as made as exception from the recovery in the case of
Rafiq Masih's case will not apply in the case of the applicant as an
abundant precaution, at the time of 3rd change of pay fixation by the
applicant, an undertaking was taken by the respondents from the
applicants which is also on record. Hence, if the pay fixation was
incorrect the respondent employer has a right to re-fix the pay and also
to effect the recovery thereon. (It is made clear that this observation
in this paragraph is limited to the recovery related to the erroneous
pay fixation for the third time and not for any recovery proposed or
effected due to change of status of the applicant on loan basis)
High Court Of Punjab & Haryana vs Jagdev Singh on 29 July, 2016
SHAIN SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
EY Bangalore
2025.10.08
VIJU 17:55:57
+05'30'
35
O.A.Nos.170/00564 of 2024& connected
matters /CAT/BANGALORE
A.1. As the applicant could not have given an option for changing her
emoluments a third time on deputation, hence, we consider the
revision of her salary with effect from 01.01.2016, after 7th CPC
commencement as justified, and we do not find a convincing case for
the applicant in that respect. Further as the case of the applicant is
covered by an undertaking given while revising her pay effective from
01.01.2016, her case is covered by the court order in the case of
Jagdev Singh (supra). So her case is not saved by the lead case of
Rafiq Masih and hence recovery on that count will be justified.
1