Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
JEEVAN SINGH BATHYAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR
NAND KISHOR SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
SAMIKSHA NARAHARI VERSUS SSLT GUJARAT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ANR
SANJEEV DHUNDIA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VERSUS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ) AND ORS
Pareshrao s/o Laxmanrao Jagdale Versus Addl. Secretary, M.P.P.K.V.V.C Ltd. & others
Law laid down : The up-gradation schemes introduced by the Government/Employer envisage mere placement in the higher pay scale/grant of financial benefits through financial up-gradation on a personal basis. Though normal promotion norms available for consideration of an employee for promotion, would be attracted under the scheme, yet only financial up-gradation could be given, even though the duties of the employee, the designation etc. remain the same, as enjoyed by him before granting of financial up-gradation. Such up-gradation did not Full Judgment
Arun Narayan Hiwase and others vs. State of M.P and others
Law laid down - Cancellation of regularisation of petitioners - the petitioners were regularised as per decision of the Screening Committee constituted as per executive instructions and the Regulation of 1988 on 20.7.1998. The said Regulation were nullified w.e.f. 13.7.1998 by passing the administrative order dated 9.7.1998. On the date of regularisation, previous regulation and instructions were in force and new Regulation of 1998 were not in existence. Hence, regularisation cannot be cancelled. Regulation 1998 - as per the Repeal and Saving Full Judgment
Raja Bhau Gulabrao Jagtap and others vs. State of M.P and others
Law laid down - Cancellation of regularisation of petitioners - the petitioners were regularised as per decision of the Screening Committee constituted as per executive instructions and the Regulation of 1988 on 20.7.1998. The said Regulation were nullified w.e.f. 13.7.1998 by passing the administrative order dated 9.7.1998. On the date of regularisation, previous regulation and instructions were in force and new Regulation of 1998 were not in existence. Hence, regularisation cannot be cancelled. Regulation 1998 - as per the Repeal and Saving Full Judgment
RAJ KUMAR CHANDAK & ORS VERSUS MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL & ANR
Mahendra Singh Amb Vs. State of M.P. and others
CPL MUKESH SINGH RAJPOOT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
ARUN CHHIBBER AND ANR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
CHAMAN GIRI & ORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS
TELANGANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD. (TSGENCO) VERSUS ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD
RASHI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
UNION BANK OF INDIA VERSUS MUJAHID QASIM
INDERJIT SINGH SODHI AND OTHERS VERSUS THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER
A.A. Abraham vs. State of M.P. and others
Law laid down - 1. Rule 15 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Disciplinary authority can issue direction for conducting ‘further inquiry’. 2. Further inquiry or denovo inquiry- Under Rule 15, the disciplinary authority cannot issue directions to conduct a ‘denovo inquiry’. In the instant case, since charge-sheet remained the same and only direction issued was to record evidence of prosecution witnesses which was not previously recorded, the direction amounts to holding ‘further inquiry’ and not Full Judgment