Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
V K Juneja vs M/O Agriculture on 23 October, 2018 cites

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

15. The case of the respondents is that excess payment of dearness relief on pension has been made to the applicant, which is sought to be recovered by the impugned order dated 10.10.2017. The applicant in the O.A. has challenged the recovery firstly on the ground that the respondents have not acted as per Rule-9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, where the pension can only be withheld or withdrawn by the Hon‟ble President of India in case of retired government servants secondly, that recovery proceedings against retired government employees are impermissible as per law laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and thirdly that the NOVOD Board had no power to issue the recovery order after the Board stood repealed by an Act of Parliament on 06.05.2016.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 7379 - J S Khehar - Full Document

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

"58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. See Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 988 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1