SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Pat) 938

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
Uma Shankar Pathak – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Certificate Case under Public Demand Recovery Act came to be instituted against the petitioner which is Certificate Case No. 7/2001-02. The reason for institution of the case was because of allegation made against him that he has joined as Assistant Teacher in a Project High School of Singhbhum on the strength of forged appointment letter dated 15.4.1988. An enquiry was held into the matter and even finding against the petitioner was recorded. An FIR was ordered to be instituted against the petitioner and even steps for recovery of so-called salary drawn by him illegally during the period he had worked was sought to be recovered through certificate case.

3. Petitioner has challenged the initiation of that case on the ground that even if the salary has been wrongly drawn by the petitioner the remedy for the respondents do not lie in invoking the provisions under Public Demand Recovery Act. According to him only such money can be recovered under the special statute if the provision has been made in Schedule-I. No clause of Schedule-I indicates that salary drawn by an employee illegally can be recovered as a public demand through a






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top