Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
ANAND SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
ARUN KUMAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
EX CPL ASIT KUMAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
RAJ KANWAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR
CT/PEON VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
RAMKANWAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
SH AMRENDRA KUMAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.
Smt. Manoj Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors
Law laid down:- 1. Government servants in service of any class (Class I to Class IV) who had given written undertaking promising to refund the excess amount are not immune from recovery. 2. However the quantum and nature of recovery in such cases is to be limited to the quantum and nature promised by the employee in the undertaking. 3. If the undertaking does not expressly provide for refund of interest over the principal amount then the interest cannot be recovered from the employee Full Judgment
Lavlesh Kumar Mishra Versus The Madhyanchal Gramin Bank and others
Law laid down:- Writ Appeal directed against the order of the Single Bench dismissing the writ petition filed against order passed by the respondent-Bank accepting the resignation of the appellant. Taking note of the facts, if we consider letter of resignation dated 16.9.2017, it is found that this letter of resignation is unconditional one and without any kind of reservation and in fact it refers to Rule 10(1)(b)(i) of the Service Regulations and categorically states that “kindly accept my intention to discontinue Full Judgment
The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Etc. Versus Sunil Kumar B. & Etc.
SHARAT DAS AND ASSOCIATES VERSUS RAMESHWAR SINGH & ORS
ABHISHEK YADAV VERSUS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR
SH ARMAN SINDHU VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
NEELIMA SRIVASTAVA VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
RAVINDER KUMAR AND ORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
KRISHNA GOPAL TIWARY & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Atul Kumar Ben and another Vs. Union of India and others
Law Laid Down:- Any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, in the facts of the case, must be neutralized, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by the delayed action of the Court. No litigant can derive any benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a Court of Law, as the interim order always merges into the final order to be passed in Full Judgment