Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)
Chandan Kumar Dalai vs Union Of India on 4 October, 2023 cites

Registrar Coop. Societies Haryana & Ors vs Israil Khan & Ors on 8 October, 2009

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon various judgments rendered by the Apex Court bolstered his submissions. He referred the case of Registrar, Cooperative Societies Haryana and others Vs. Israil Khan and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 440 to submit that recovery of excess rent payment of emoluments/allowances from the employee can be recovered where following conditions were fulfilled:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 273 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) Thr.Lrs.& Ors vs S. Venkatareddy (Dead) Thr.Lrs.& Ors on 3 December, 2009

20. It is the submission of learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 that method of computation providing in the Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Enterprises released the office memorandum dated 03.08.2017 and it was adopted by NHPC vide memorandum dated 05.09.2018. NHPC decided vide order dated 22.03.2022 to NHDC pointing out discrepancies in NHDC Performance Related Pay (PRP) and on the basis of said communication, recovery order has been issued. Therefore, without challenging the original orders, writ petition against consequential recovery order based on such Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 04-10-2023 06:57:00 PM 62 method of computation is not maintainable. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) Through LRs. and others Vs. S. Venkatareddy (Dead) Through LRs. and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 756.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 85 - Full Document

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

21. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 further takes the case of petitioners on the ground that in view of undertaking dated 05.09.2018 given by the petitioners as per Clause 16.6 of the office order dated 05.09.2018, petitioners cannot wriggle out from their commitment and thus, they are bound by the impugned orders. He relied upon the judgment in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267.
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

22. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in PRP Scheme benefits were granted to the petitioners from July, 2019 to February, 2022 and recovery is ordered within a short time vide order dated 29.03.2022. Petitioners had given an undertaking as per Clause 16.6 of the office order dated 05.09.2018. Therefore, within the short span of time, discrepancies surfaced and therefore recovery is permissible. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 2121 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 17 August, 2012

23. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that excess payment of public money/tax payers money can always be recovered which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 04-10-2023 06:57:00 PM 63 payment nor to the recipients and concept of non-recovery on account of receipt of payment without any fraud or misrepresentation is not applicable as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 471.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1165 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document
1