Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Shantilal Aakhatya Kokani vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 1 July, 2024 cites

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana vs Jagdev Singh on 29 July, 2016

At the stroke of superannuation of the said employee, asking him to tender an undertaking, practically amounts to an afterthought on the part of the employer and a mode of compelling the candidate to execute an undertaking since they are apprehensive that their retiral benefits would not be released until such undertaking is executed. Such an undertaking will not have the same sanctity of an undertaking executed when the payment of revised pay scale had commenced. We, therefore, respectfully conclude that the view taken in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh (supra), would not be applicable to the case of these Petitioners, more so since the recovery is initiated after their superannuation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 921 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

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

In the light of the above, the law laid down in Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra), would be applicable to the case of the Petitioners. On the issue of the undertaking, this Court has already concluded that an undertaking extracted at the stroke of retirement, is taking advantage of the helplessness of such Petitioners. They are at the verge of the retirement and at the time of calculating their retiral benefits, an undertaking is extracted. There are instances 7 of 8 (( 8 )) 5-WP-6436-2024 when the Petitioners have approached this Court as the employers have not released the retiral benefits, since the Petitioners did not accede to the demand of an amount.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 2121 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

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

In the light of the above, the law laid down in Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra), would be applicable to the case of the Petitioners. On the issue of the undertaking, this Court has already concluded that an undertaking extracted at the stroke of retirement, is taking advantage of the helplessness of such Petitioners. They are at the verge of the retirement and at the time of calculating their retiral benefits, an undertaking is extracted. There are instances 7 of 8 (( 8 )) 5-WP-6436-2024 when the Petitioners have approached this Court as the employers have not released the retiral benefits, since the Petitioners did not accede to the demand of an amount.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Nilima Ashok Kale Alias Mohini Vijay ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 9 December, 2021

This Court has also considered the tendency of employers in extracting written undertakings from the employees at the stroke of their retirement vide the judgment delivered dated 14.03.2024 in Writ Petition No.2810 of 2024 (Vijaya Khandu Tayade Vs. the State of Maharashtra and others) and Writ Petition No.2863 of 2024 (Asha Dhanraj Nimbalkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and others). It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph Nos. 4 to 7 hereunder:-
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S G Dige - Full Document
1