Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)
The State Of Jharkhand vs Birendra Pratap Singh on 11 June, 2024 cites

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

25. The Hon'ble Apex Court since has laid down the proposition in the case State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. (supra), as such, this Court is of the view that what adjudication has been made by the learned Single Judge by showing interference with the impugned order keeping the fact into consideration that the writ petitioner was holding the class-III post as also there is no Page 8 of 9 L.P.A. No. 190 of 2021 misrepresentation or any fraud, which, according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from any error.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Purshottam Lal Das & Others vs The State Of Bihar & Others on 10 October, 2006

23. However, after the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Purshottam Lal Das and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra), the judgment has been rendered in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. (supra) clarifying the position that there cannot be any recovery if the concerned public servant is coming under the fold of parameters as under paragraph-18 thereof.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 235 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Shyam Babu Verma vs Union Of India on 8 February, 1994

14. Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the issue of recovery in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417 wherein by deferring with Page 5 of 9 L.P.A. No. 190 of 2021 the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India (supra) has taken the contrary view by holding therein that if the amount has been paid, the same since is of a tax payers money, thence, the same is to be recovered from the concerned employee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 850 - N P Singh - Full Document

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

13. Again, in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors. [1995 Supp (1) SCC 18], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that although the appellant therein did not possess the required educational qualification, yet the Principal granting him the relaxation, had paid his salary on the revised pay scale and this was not on account of misrepresentation made by the appellant but by a mistake committed by the Principal and as such the amount already paid to the appellant need not be recovered. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 988 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1