Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
Haradhan Banerjee vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 January, 2018 cites

Union Of India & Anr vs Tarsem Singh on 13 August, 2008

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and after perusing the records and averments and also after considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir; Rafiq Masih and Tarsem Singh (supra), I am of the view that the amount which was wrongly deducted by the authority from the petitioner's pensionary benefit without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner when the petitioner is very much in service cannot be accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 2254 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Sri Harekrishna Sardar & Anr on 11 May, 2009

In State of West Bengal & Ors vs Harekrishna Sardar & Anr reported in 2009 (4) CHN (CAL) Page 136 where the Hon'ble Division bench relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1957 SC 1269 (State of Orissa vs Dr. Miss Binapani Dey) held that even if undertaking was given but after retirement deduction from the gratuity amount without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner when the petitioner was in service cannot be sustained since it is an administrative order which causes civil consequences. Accordingly the Hon'ble Division Bench affirmed the Trial Court Judgment without any interference.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 45 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967

In State of West Bengal & Ors vs Harekrishna Sardar & Anr reported in 2009 (4) CHN (CAL) Page 136 where the Hon'ble Division bench relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision reported in AIR 1957 SC 1269 (State of Orissa vs Dr. Miss Binapani Dey) held that even if undertaking was given but after retirement deduction from the gratuity amount without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner when the petitioner was in service cannot be sustained since it is an administrative order which causes civil consequences. Accordingly the Hon'ble Division Bench affirmed the Trial Court Judgment without any interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1001 - J C Shah - Full Document

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

In that cited decision (High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors Vs Jagdev Singh) the petitioner /respondent was a suspended employee of the 11 subordinate judiciary under High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The respondent furnished an undertaking and he was granted the revised pay scale and selection grade. Subsequently the recommendation of the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission) was accepted by the Hon'ble Court. Thereupon, the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and Haryana Superior Judicial Service Revised Pay Rules 2003 were notified on 7th May, 2003.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 921 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1