Back
ANIL VERMA
Hari Shankar Soni – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. With consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. The present petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs:-
(ii) That, the order dated 28.7.2023 Annexure P/1 passed by the respondents may kindly be directed to be quashed.
(iii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.226587/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
(iv) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1979 on the post of Lower Division Clerk. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted in the month of April, 1980 from the post of L.D.C. to the post of Junior Inspector and further in the month of August, 1982 petitioner was promoted from the post of Junior Inspector to Senior Inspector and in the month of November, 1985 petitioner was further promoted from the post of Senior Inspector to Field Officer and peti
Recovery from retired Class III employees is impermissible without misrepresentation, as established by the Supreme Court.
Point of Law : It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, yet in the following situations, recovery by the employer would be....
The petitioner's undertaking at the time of payment bound him to refund any excess payment detected later, even after retirement.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
