Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Hemant Laxmanrao Lambe vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 19 November, 2025 cites

Sahib Ram vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 19 September, 1994

58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967], V. Gangaram v. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652], Col.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 988 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr vs M. Bhaskar And Ors on 6 May, 1996

58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967], V. Gangaram v. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652], Col.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 446 - Full Document

Gangubai Garad (L.Rs.)Balasaheb vs Mahadu Gangaram (L.Rs.)Prayagbai & ... on 27 April, 2020

58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 967], V. Gangaram v. Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1652], Col.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 39 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Manjeet Singh And Anr on 29 September, 2006

17. Respondent No. 2 has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdev Singh (supra), more particularly Paragraph No. 11 in support of its contention that the Petitioners, who were put on notice that if the payment found to be in excess, same would Gitalaxmi Page 33 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:23 ::: WP-3120-2020+-J.odt be recovered from their salaries. The said Paragraph No. 11 reads as follows :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 307 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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

9. The Employer relies upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others Vs. Jagdev Singh [AIR 2016 SCW 3523]. The facts of the case in the said judgment are distinguishable. In this case, the undertaking is undated according to the employer. As a date 07.09.2022 appears on the undertaking, the same does not seem to be executed earlier in point of Gitalaxmi Page 34 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:23 ::: WP-3120-2020+-J.odt time.
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

23. Petitioner belonging to Class-II service in Writ Petition No. Gitalaxmi Page 36 of 37 ::: Uploaded on - 19/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/11/2025 21:12:23 ::: WP-3120-2020+-J.odt 13171/2019 has superannuated in the month of July 2022. Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 10284/2019, 10285/2019, 10820/2019, 3120/2020 & 1424/2023, are still in service. Taking into account that these Petitioners were not involved in any mischief, fraud or deceit in orchestrating their wrongful Pay Revision/increments, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) and Rafiq Masih (supra) would apply to the case in hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 2121 - B N Agrawal - Full Document
1