Pankaj Bansal v. State Of Punjab And ORS
!"#" $%&''( $) * $# + '''
" $ , - ,#.# /
.$* 0 $1 ,# '''
#3 $1
!
"""
!
CM-1087-CWP-2024,
CM-1406-CWP-2024 and CM-1160-CWP-2024
$
!
& ' ( )
$
$
!
& ' ( ) * "#$%&'()$%&%)
#
*
!
#
*
,
-
!
$
#
*
#
* ./'
*
$
# ,
*
-
! $ #
01!
*+ #,-.
/ *
0+1
"
!
23 %&)4 )!
3 )54
! #
03!
')44
*,
*+ #,-.
7 / *
0
/
57 48 54&6
!
$ #
+
# # !
$
9
*
:
;
$
$ #
#
+1
"
!
2 ,9!3
9 01!
#
+1
"
!
2 ,9!3
/ : 2
,9!
9
# ,&&
#
/ : 2
,9!
, The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.
$ ! 01!
$
$
*
<
#
/ : 2
,9!3
$ !
#
:
#
# $
#
$
#
,&5( /6 //