Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.41 seconds)
P D Mathur vs M/O Railways on 15 December, 2020 cites

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

But the 19 OA No. 291/412/2015 with MA No. 291/424/2015, MA No. 291/425/2015, MA No. 291/793/2019 & CP No. 291/65/2015 AND OA No. 291/413/2015 with MA No. 291/426/2015, MA No. 291/427/2015 & CP No. 291/66/2015 interpretation of the respondents for grant of 3rd MACP is not proper. If one has got MACP on one date, he would get 3rd MACP only after completing 30 years of service. The same is not the legal interpretation of the Scheme. Applicant belongs to Group 'C' and he has neither misrepresented nor played any fraud, therefore, as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors, no recovery can be made. The applicant relied on some judgments/orders and few of them are as under:-
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

20. Coming to the question of recovery, the submission of the applicant that he is Group 'C' employee and, therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) no recovery can be made, also cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in 2016 (5) SLR 133 (S.C.), wherein the Lordship after taking into consideration the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) have observed that if there was a condition stipulated at the time of granting some extra benefit of a higher post, that in future, if any infirmity is found, the excess amount may be adjusted/recovered, it is liable to be refunded and the same is accepted by the employee, 32 OA No. 291/412/2015 with MA No. 291/424/2015, MA No. 291/425/2015, MA No. 291/793/2019 & CP No. 291/65/2015 AND OA No. 291/413/2015 with MA No. 291/426/2015, MA No. 291/427/2015 & CP No. 291/66/2015 then in that eventuality, the authority exercising that option cannot be faulted and such recovery is permissible. Also Rule 15 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 is very clear as the same gives a right to the respondents to recover any amount of over payment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 921 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 17 August, 2012

21. Also in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration the various decisions of this Court, had come to the conclusion that even if by mistake of the employer, the amount is paid to the employee and on a later date if the employer after proper determination of the same discovers that the excess payment is made by mistake or negligence, the excess payment so made could be recovered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1165 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

S.P. Mathur vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 December, 1999

2. For the sake of convenience, the brief facts of OA No. 291/412/2015 (P.D. Mathur vs. Union of India & Ors.) are taken up. The OA No. 291/412/2015 has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the 5 OA No. 291/412/2015 with MA No. 291/424/2015, MA No. 291/425/2015, MA No. 291/793/2019 & CP No. 291/65/2015 AND OA No. 291/413/2015 with MA No. 291/426/2015, MA No. 291/427/2015 & CP No. 291/66/2015 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 Next