Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)Section 21 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
3. The applicant states that the respondents implemented the
order of this Tribunal passed in OA-98/2015 (Som Prakash Vs. GNCTD
& Ors.) on 26.11.2015, which was decided relying upon the judgment
of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs.
Rafiq Masih & Ors., 2014(8)SCALE 613 and also DoP&T O.M. dated
02.03.2016 holding that any recovery from the Class-III and Class-IV
(Group-C & D Services) retired employees or the employees due to
retire within one year, would be impermissible. Therefore, the
respondents were directed not to recover any amount from the
applicant herein and in case they have recovered some amount,
the same should be refunded within 15 days.
Asi Jai Raj Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 December, 2010
An identical issue
came for adjudication before this Tribunal in OA-2083/2015 (Jai Singh
4 OA-2158/2017
Jain Vs. GNCTD & Ors.) decided on 20.08.2016 wherein it was held
that any recovery from the gratuity of applicant is impermissible and
it was directed that the respondents therein should refund the
amount of Rs.3,69,587/-, which was already deducted.
Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 17 August, 2012
10.1 As regards the reliance placed by the respondents on the
judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad
Uniyal (supra), needless to state that the judgment of Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) had taken note of
the afore mentioned judgments before laying down the law. The
plea of the respondents is that the judgment in Rafiq Masih came on
18.12.2014, followed by DoP&T Circular dated 02.03.2016, prior to
which recovery could be made in terms of Circular dated 06.02.2014
8 OA-2158/2017
of DoP&T is not tenable. The decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
came in December, 2014 despite which the respondents chose to
go ahead with the recovery, which, in any case, was a result of their
own mistake/misinterpretation of the MACP Scheme.
I. C. Golaknath & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anrs.(With Connected ... on 27 February, 1967
Union Of India vs S. R. Dhingra And Others on 14 December, 2007
(c) UOI Vs. S.R. Dhingra, (2008)2 SCC 229.
Basawaraj S/O Kashappa vs The Spl Land Acquisition Officer on 10 June, 2011
(d) Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
2013)14 SCC 811.
Om Parkash & Ors vs Chief Secretary To Govt. Of Punjab & Ors on 11 September, 2017
4. The applicant submitted a representation dated 20.04.2017
against the illegal deduction of the amount of gratuity and
requested for refund of the same but the respondents stated that
they will not release the withheld amount without orders from the
Court. The applicant submits that this action of the respondents is
violative of the judicial pronouncements of this Tribunal in OA-
864/2014 (Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Secretary, NCERT) and OA-98/2014
(Pradeep Kumar Vs. Govt. of India & Ors.) and is illegal and arbitrary.
Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi vs Government Of India Ministry Of Finance ... on 13 January, 2012
4. The applicant submitted a representation dated 20.04.2017
against the illegal deduction of the amount of gratuity and
requested for refund of the same but the respondents stated that
they will not release the withheld amount without orders from the
Court. The applicant submits that this action of the respondents is
violative of the judicial pronouncements of this Tribunal in OA-
864/2014 (Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Secretary, NCERT) and OA-98/2014
(Pradeep Kumar Vs. Govt. of India & Ors.) and is illegal and arbitrary.