Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.90 seconds)
C.J. Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 8 October, 2003 cites

Narayan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 3 April, 2002

This question has recently been examined by the Rajasthan High court in the matter of Narain Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2003 II CLR 1018. It was a matter relating to recovery of the amount wrongly paid. The petitioner therein retired employee challenged recovery of the amount wrongly paid to him without any fault on his part. In view of such facts, it was held by the Rajasthan High Court that the payments wrongly made without any fault on the part of the employee, having retired, recovery from him will cause legal injury. It has also been held that a legal right has accrued to him and, therefore, after his retirement, no recovery can be ordered against the retired employee. IN the said matter, the Rajasthan High Court has considered entire case law on this subject in para 9 to 15 and has observed as under in para 16, 17, 18 and 19:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - N N Mathur - Full Document

State Of Kerala And Ors vs M. Padmanabhan Nair on 17 December, 1984

In this appeal before us the appellant urges that he would be entitled to 18% interest at least in view of judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair. Relying on this ruling, it is submitted that there is unjustified culpable delay in issuing the No Demand Certificate. The Tribunal having held that DCRG cannot be withheld because of the pendency of the claim for damages should have awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 545 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Som Prakash Rekhi vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 November, 1980

2. Since the appellant-University did not settle the first respondent's claim for terminal benefits including the fixation and disbursement of the pension, the first respondent filed C.M.W.P. No. 30428/97. The writ petition was opposed by the appellant-University contending that the first respondent, having not vacated the quarter held by him when he retired and within the permissible extended period, was liable for payment of penal rent in respect of such accommodation and that as a matter of fact the Finance Controller, Office of Directorate of Higher Education, U.P., who examined his pension papers, ordered on the recommendation of the University-authorities the adjustment of Rs. 3,20,638.04 from the amounts due towards the retiral benefits. Further, a sum of Rs. 64,441.54 was also ordered to be deducted from the Provident Fund amount due to first respondent. On a consideration of the respective claims of parties, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by its order dated 17-8-1998, applying the principles laid down in Som Prakash v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC 212) and R.Kapur v.Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income-Tax (1994) 6 SCC 589 overruled the objections of the University holding that the pension and other retiral benefits cannot be withheld or adjusted or appropriated for the satisfaction of any other dues outstanding against the retired employee. The action of the University authorities to the contrary was held to be illegal and while allowing the claim of the first respondent, a direction came to be issued to pay the entire pension and provident fund etc. due to first respondent, with penal interest @ 18% within two months from the date of the order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 406 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next