Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
Subhash Chandra Pattanaik vs Indian Council Of Medical Research on 21 January, 2026 cites

M.R. Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1995

"3. ............Hence, according to him, there is no delay and, in argumendo, even if there is any delay, this being a recurring cause of action, delay should not stand on the way for the relief, unlike the present case, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.R.Gupta Vs UOI & Ors, 1996 AIR 669. We have examined the matter, keeping in mind the facts and law stated above, and do not find any merit to uphold the stand point of the respondents that this OA being hit by limitation is liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 597 - J S Verma - Full Document

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

The DoP&T taking into consideration the decision in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, issued exhaustive guidelines vide OM dated 02.03.2016 on recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants. In the instant case, the applicant retired on 31.05.2019. He was communicated the office order showing the recovery on 31.07.2019. Respondents filed their counter on 25.09.2024 stating therein that they have not recovered any amount from the retiral dues of RAVI KUMAR 2026.01.21 15:56:47 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00351 of 2024 the applicant but withheld the same awaiting final decision of the competent authority without stating who is the competent authority to take a decision when counter has also been filed on behalf of Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. Hence, this submission of the respondents is held to be an arbitrary action on their part.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

B.H. Amar Venkatesh And Ors. vs Senior Superintendent Of Post Officers ... on 19 February, 2004

As discussed above, it makes clear that the decision of the Single Bench in OA No. 542/2020 has no application to the present case since, according to the respondents, they have not recovered the amount but withheld the same from DCRG of the applicant awaiting the final decision of the competent authority and that the said decision was rendered without taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B H AMAR Venkatesh & Ors (supra) and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogeshwar Sahoo (supra).
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Durga Madhab Sundaray vs Union Of India & Others .... Opposite ... on 10 August, 2023

8. The respondents in their counter so also in hearing have put/laid much more emphasis on the earlier decision of this case in the case of Gopal Krushna Padhi (supra). According to them, the said case is akin to the case in hand and the same having been dismissed by this Bench, which has not been reversed by any higher forum, the OA is liable to be dismissed. We find that the order in OA No. 542/2020 was dismissed by the Single Bench.
Orissa High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - A K Mohapatra - Full Document
1