REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

JAGDISH PRASAD BANSAL Appellant

V/S

STATE OF MP Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SIR BARNES PEACOCK IN LINDSAY PETROLEUM CO. V. PROSPER ARMSTRONG HURD [REFERRED TO]
MOON MILLS LIMITED VS. M R MEHER PRESIDENT INDUSTRIAL COURT BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BALWANT REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE AMRAVATI [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PRASHAD VS. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PRASHAD VS. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRANATH BOSE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. NANDLAL JAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
RUP DIAMONDS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. S M KOTRAYYA [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHLAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHLAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS. K THANGAPPAN [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN U P JAL NIGAM VS. JASWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHIV DASS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. PAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
M P RAM MOHAN RAJA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
NADIA DISTT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL VS. SRISTIDHAR BISWAS [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH BABU VS. LAJPAT RAI SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAMATA MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAFIQ MASIH [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA & ORS VS. JAGDEV SINGH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) During the arguments, it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that at present, the petitioner is a Class-II Officer. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has held as under:-

(3.) Per contra, it is submitted by the Government Advocate for the State that the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 has held that where the undertaking has been given by the employee, then the law laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) would not apply. It is submitted that being an obedient employee the petitioner must return the excess payment, which was erroneously made to him on the ground of miscalculations and wrong fixation of salary. It is further submitted that the petition suffers from delay and laches as order passed in the year 2011 has been challenged in 2016.

Click here to view full judgment.

JAGDISH PRASAD BANSAL Vs. STATE OF MP

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address