Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) on 18 December, 2014
45. The case of the petitioners also falls squarely
covered by the proposition of law laid down in Rafiq Masih
(Supra) that recovery by the employer would be impermissible
in law if it would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an
extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the
employer's right to recover.
Sahib Ram vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 19 September, 1994
"27. The last question to be considered is
whether relief should be granted against the
recovery of the excess payments made on account of
the wrong interpretation/ understanding of the
circular dated 7−6−1999. This Court has
consistently granted relief against recovery of
excess wrong payment of emoluments/allowances
from an employee, if the following conditions are
fulfilled (vide Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana [1995
Supp (1) SCC 18 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 248], Shyam
Babu Verma v. Union of India [(1994) 2 SCC 521 :
Union Of India And Anr vs M. Bhaskar And Ors on 6 May, 1996
1994 SCC (L&S) 683 : (1994) 27 ATC 121], Union
of India v. M. Bhaskar [(1996) 4 SCC 416 : 1996
SCC (L&S) 967] and V.Gangaram v. Regional Jt.
Director [(1997) 6 SCC 139 : 1997 SCC (L&S)
1652]): (a) The excess payment was not made on
account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the
part of the employee. (b) Such excess payment was
made by the employer by applying a wrong principle
for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of
a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is
subsequently found to be erroneous.
Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2008
In Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of
Bihar and Others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 excess
payment was sought to be recovered which was made to the
appellants−teachers on account of mistake and wrong
interpretation of prevailing Bihar Nationalised Secondary
School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. The appellants therein
contended that even if it were to be held that the appellants were
Patna High Court CWJC No.24639 of 2018 dt.27-07-2023
20/33
not entitled to the benefit of additional increment on promotion,
the excess amount should not be recovered from them, it having
been paid without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part.
The Supreme Court held that the appellants cannot be held
responsible in such a situation and recovery of the excess
payment should not be ordered, especially when the employee
has subsequently retired. The Court observed that in general
parlance, recovery is prohibited by courts where there exists no
misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and when
the excess payment has been made by applying a wrong
interpretation/ understanding of a Rule or Order. It was held
thus:
Union Of India vs C.R. Madhava Murthy on 6 April, 2022
"14. The object and purpose of ACP/MACP Scheme
has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India &
Others Vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr. (2022) 6 SCC 183,
as one to relieve the frustration on account of stagnation
and it does not involve actual grant of promotional post but
merely monetary benefits in the form of next higher grade
subject to fulfilment of qualifications and eligibility criteria.
Union Of India & Anr vs G. Rajanna & Ors on 15 October, 2008
34. The above mentioned Notification No. 1237
dated 10.10.2018 is also not sustainable considering the second
issue involved in the present case in the light of settled principle
of law laid down by the Apex Court.
Punit Rai vs Dinesh Chaudhary on 19 August, 2003
In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in
case of Punit Rai v. Dinesh Choudhary reported in (2003) 8
SCC 204 in paragraph no. 42 has made following observation:
State Of U.P vs Neeraj Awasthi & Others on 16 December, 2005
42. The Apex Court has further clarified in case of
State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi reported in (2006) 1 SCC 667
which relates to such decision taken by an officer of the State
without complying with the requirement of Article 162 read
Patna High Court CWJC No.24639 of 2018 dt.27-07-2023
30/33
with Article 166 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken as
a decision of the State Government. Paragraph no. 41 of the
judgment is inter alia reproduced hereinafter: