Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. Vs. NIKHIL RANJAN CHAKRABORTY & ORS.
The law is thus clear that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, namely, “rules in force on the date” the consideration takes place and that there is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must invariably be filled by the law existing on the date when they arose. As against the case of total exclusion and Full Judgment
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
SECRETARY MAHATAMA GANDHI MISSION & ARN. Vs. BHARTIYA KAMGAR SENA AND ORS
YASH PAL & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Sanjay Sondhi, Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Oth.
Dilip Hedau Versus Chhattisgarh Hastashilp Vikas Board & Oth.
RAM NARESH RAWAT Vs. SRI ASHWINI RAY AND ORS.
From the aforesaid, it follows that though a 'permanent employee' has right to receive pay in the graded pay-scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay-scale with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay-scale. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by Full Judgment
VIJAY SHANKAR MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
More importantly, certain inbuilt safeguards against discharge from service based on four red ink entries have also been prescribed. The first and foremost is an unequivocal declaration that mere award of four red ink entries to an individual does not make his discharge mandatory. This implies that four red ink entries is not some kind of Laxman Full Judgment
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND ORS Vs. ABRAR ALI
CEO, KRISHNA DISTRICT COOP. CENTRAL BANK LTD AND ANR Vs. K HANUMANTHA RAO AND ANR
The impugned order is also faulted for the reason that it is not the function of the High Court to impose a particular punishment even in those cases where it was found that penalty awarded by the employer is shockingly disproportionate. In such a case, the matter could, at the best, be remanded to the disciplinary authority for imposition of lesser punishment leaving it to such authority to consider Full Judgment
JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JALGAON DIVI
BINDESHWARI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 20.05.2008, passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereby Letters Patent Appeal No. 436 of 2000 was disposed of allowing respondent authorities to withhold 50% of gratuity and 50% of pension, of the appellant. It is also nobody’s case that the appellant caused pecuniary loss to the exchequer. In the light of above, we find force in submission of Full Judgment
H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD Vs. MAHESH DAHIYA
“Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That Full Judgment
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 ORS. Vs. DHIRENDRA PAL SINGH
Admittedly, no departmental enquiry was initiated in the present case against the respondent for the misconduct, if any, nor any proceedings drawn as provided in Article 351-A of UP Civil Service Regulations. Learned single Judge of the High Court has observed that the document which is the basis of enquiry and relied upon by the State authorities, copy Full Judgment
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS Vs. JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS
Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were Full Judgment
STATE OF H.P & ORS Vs. RAJESH CHANDER SOOD ETC ETC
In our opinion, since the employees of Government companies are not Government servants, they have absolutely no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay-scales should be met by the Government. Being employees of the companies, it is the responsibility of the companies to pay them salary and if the company is Full Judgment
MANAGEMENT OF TNSTC LTD Vs. M. CHANDRASEKARAN
In our opinion, the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in reappreciating the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and in substituting his own judgment to that of the Disciplinary Authority. It was not a case of no legal evidence produced during the enquiry by the Department, in relation to the charges framed against Full Judgment
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
B.H. KHAWAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Indubitably, if the argument of the appellant was accepted, it would inevitably mean that all appointments made before 28.11.2000 must be protected even though it had not become final. That would also mean that all caste certificates issued to persons belonging to “Koshti” community, as being “Halba” Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra, prior to November 28, 2000 (the day on which Milind’s case was decided Full Judgment