Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
PEPSU ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPN. THROUGH ITS M.D. & ANR Vs. S.K.SHARMA & ORS
The main controversy in this case is whether the claim of the respondents, a group of twenty one employees of PEPSU Roadways that in spite of transfer of that department to the Corporation they continue to be actually Government servants and therefore entitled to retiral benefits instead of CPF is acceptable or not. There may be similar stipulations in case of Full Judgment
MULIN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS
Shekhar Choudhary Versus Union of India, through Directorate of General Defence Estates, Raksha Sambada Bhawan, Ulaanbaatar Marg, Delhi Cantonment 110010
Om Prakash Dixit Versus State of M.P. & Ors. Dated 14 June 2016
Chetram Meena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another
Munna V/s State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Civil Secct. Lko. & Ors
Ramsingh Kanwar V/s State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors,
SANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. PALAK DHARI YADAV & ORS.
PRAMOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
SHOBHA RAM RATURI Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.& ORS
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated 31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, Full Judgment
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Vs. R.K. GUPTA & ORS.
BRIJ BIHARI SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.(R-1,4,7)
It is well settled that a person who is required to answer a charge imposed should know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. The delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to Full Judgment
B. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
PARVAIZ AHMAD PARRY Vs. STATE OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND ORS
In our view, if a candidate has done B.Sc. in Forestry as one of the major subjects and has also done Masters in the Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry) then in the absence of any clarification on such issue, the candidate possessing such higher qualification has to be held to possess the required qualification to apply for the post. Full Judgment
VEERENNDRA KUMAR DUBEY Vs. CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF & ORS
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 rekha, which if crossed would by itself render the individual concerned undesirable or unworthy of retention in the force. Award of four red ink entries simply pushes the individual concerned into a grey area where Full Judgment
C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Vs. TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS.
The question that fell for consideration therein was whether the practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry of counting the service of Section Officers/Junior Engineers who have qualified as graduates while in service only from the date they passed the degree or equivalent examination for purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers under Rule 11(1) of the Government of Pondicherry Assistant Full Judgment
Parmesh Kumar & Another Vs State Of U.P. & 5 Others
AJITHKUMAR P AND ORS Vs. REMIN K R AND ORS
In view of the legal position enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases the conclusion is irresistible that a student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. It is application Full Judgment
ASGER IBRAHIM AMIN Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA
To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is Full Judgment
DULU DEVI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
mere passing of an order of dismissal or termination would not be effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned. If the appointing authority passes an order of dismissal, but does not communicate it to the officer concerned, theoretically it is possible that unlike in the case on a judicial order pronounced in Court, the authority may change its mind and decide to modify its order. The order Full Judgment