Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.48 seconds)State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
Moreover, in a country like India with a written
Constitution and which professes its undying
allegiance to the Rule of Law it is necessary that the
rights of the parties which have concretised on
account of efflux of time should not be tinkered with
lightly by the State authorities. An administrative
decision if taken on a mistake of fact can be
corrected, but then, it is not every mistake which
can be permitted to be corrected in the garb of a
mistake committed in the past. Though, Mr. Jai
Prakash, the learned Additional Advocate General
has contended that without concurrence of the
Department of Finance the aforesaid ACP benefits
were granted to the respondents, it is not in dispute
that the decision as contained in the Notification
dated 20th March 2007 has been implemented by
the State of Jharkhand. Seven years thereafter, the
State of Jharkhand has issued the Notification No.
263 dated 22nd January 2014 which has seriously
affected the respondents. It is also admitted at bar
that all the respondents except a few have by now
superannuated from service. Even otherwise,
keeping in mind the judgment in "State of Punjab v.
Rafiq Masih (whitewasher)" (2015) 4 SCC 334 the
order passed by the writ Court that no recovery
shall be made from the respondents and if any
recovery has been LPA No. 142 of 2018 with batch
matters made the amount shall be refunded to the
respondents does not call for any interference by
this Court.
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011
15. The further legal position is that if any illegality has
been committed the same needs to be rectified the moment it
comes to the notice of the competent authority so that the
illegality which has been committed be not allowed to
continue further, reference in this regard may be made to the
W.P(S) No. 4953 of 2014
-7-
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3
SCC 436, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased
to hold that if any illegality has been committed, the same is
to be rectified the moment it came to the notice of the
authorities and if such exercise would not be resorted, it will
amount to perpetuating the illegality, for ready reference, the
relevant paragraph of the judgment is being referred
hereunder as :-
Jagjit Singh Rathor And Anr. vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi And Anr. on 20 November, 2001
"56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is
not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not
envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other
similarly situated persons have been granted some
benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does
not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the
same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh,
Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Anand
Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v.
State of M.P., Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K,
Upendra Narayan Singh and Union of India v.
Kartick Chandra Mondal.)
M/S Anand Buttons Ltd vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 10 December, 2004
"56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is
not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not
envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other
similarly situated persons have been granted some
benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does
not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the
same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh,
Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Anand
Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v.
State of M.P., Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K,
Upendra Narayan Singh and Union of India v.
Kartick Chandra Mondal.)
K.K. Bhalla vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 13 January, 2006
"56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is
not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not
envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other
similarly situated persons have been granted some
benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does
not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the
same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh,
Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Anand
Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v.
State of M.P., Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K,
Upendra Narayan Singh and Union of India v.
Kartick Chandra Mondal.)
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Anr vs Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr on 15 January, 2010
"56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is
not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not
envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other
similarly situated persons have been granted some
benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does
not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the
same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh,
Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Anand
Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana, K.K. Bhalla v.
State of M.P., Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K,
Upendra Narayan Singh and Union of India v.
Kartick Chandra Mondal.)
Hotel Balaji And Others Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 22 October, 1992
57. This principle also applies to judicial
pronouncements. Once the court comes to the
conclusion that a wrong order has been passed, it
becomes the solemn duty of the court to rectify the
mistake rather than perpetuate the same. While
dealing with a similar issue, this Court in Hotel
Balaji v. State of A.P. observed as under: (SCC p.
551, para 12).
Union Of India & Anr vs Narendra Singh on 13 December, 2007
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr.
v. Narendra Singh, (2008) 2 SCC 750, wherein at paragraph 32 it
has been laid down, which reads hereunder as: