Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)
Hanmant Pundaji Makhanikar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 2 August, 2024 cites

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 8 July, 2014

"7. Our Courts are dealing with hundreds of such cases. On each day, we have at least one such case before us. Considering the law laid down in Rafiq Masih (Supra), our Courts have been quashing notices for recovery on the ground that such notices have been issued long after the retirement of an employee and especially in the cases of Class-IV employees, who would find it difficult to shell out large sums of money towards recovery/payment. Consequentially, we have pardoned several Class-IV employees and protected them as against recovery.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 276 - Full Document

Ananda Vikram Baviskar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 1 September, 2021

13. Since, in the case in hand, it clearly appears that while granting higher pay scale to the Petitioner under the 7 th pay commission, an excess amount of Rs. 1,30,144/- is being wrongly paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the recovery of excess payment against the Petitioner has been directed. Therefore, taking into consideration law laid down in the case of Jagdev Singh and Ananda 10 of 11 (( 11 )) WP-6844-2024-Judgment Vikram Baviskar, (supra), the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - R V Ghuge - Full Document
1