Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
M/S Hotel Yamuna View Ltd. Unit Agra Ashok, Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4) U.P. Agra And Anr
M. SURENDER REDDY Vs. GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.
The questions that arise for determination in this case are: (a)whether G.O.Ms.124 dated 7th March, 2002 is retrospective in nature in order to make it applicable to the posts for which selection process has already started pursuant to 1999 advertisement, and (b) If the said G.O.Ms. is retrospective, whether it is required to review the entire select Full Judgment
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. V.K.KRISHNAN & ORS.
As stated hereinabove, seniority list for employees working in different grades should be different and there cannot be any common seniority list for all the employees working in one particular group. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment affirming the order of the Tribunal and also direct that according to the provisions of the aforestated paras contained in the Manual, the appellants Full Judgment
NAWAL KISHOR MISHRA & ORS. Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD &ORS
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the questions that arise for consideration in these appeals are as under: Whether the appellants have the locus standi to challenge the appointments made by the High Court in the filling up of the unfilled vacancies of the reserved categories in the Direct Recruitment Posts by way of promotion of the 'in service candidates'? Whether the High Court could have validly adopted the Reservation Act of 1994 Full Judgment
AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA THR ITS SECRETARY & ANR
Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, however, has rightly relied on a series of Judgments of this Court, including O.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1987 (4) SCC 328, where this Court has enunciated that the suspension of an employee is injurious to his interests and must not be continued for an unreasonably long period; that, therefore, an order of suspension should not be lightly passed. Suspension, specially preceding Full Judgment
KHURSHEED AHMAD KHAN VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
In absence thereof the second marriage is a misconduct under the Conduct Rules- Polygamy was not integral part of religion and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25.- Even if bigamy be regarded as an integral part of Hindu religion, Rule 27 of the U.P. Government Servants' Conduct Rules requiring permission of the Government before contracting such marriage must be held to come under the protection of Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution- What is permitted or not prohibited by a religion does not become Full Judgment
RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
In view of the law laid down by this Court, we are of the view that if any person who is or was a legal practitioner, including a retired Hon'ble Judge is appointed as Inquiry Officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee, the denial of assistance of legal practitioner to the charged employee would be unfair. Full Judgment
UNION OF INDIA THR.SECRETARY & ORS. Vs. ANJU JAIN & ANR
DIWAN SINGH Vs. L.I.C. & ORS.
This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee Full Judgment
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. VERSUS PARVEZ KHAN
M.P.SINGH BARGOTI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA
Sanjay Bharti Vs State of Chhattisgarh and others.
A probationer has no right to hold the post and his service can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post held by him. If the competent authority holds an inquiry for judging the suitability of the probationer or for his further continuance in service or for confirmation and such inquiry is the basis for taking decision to terminate his service, then the action of Full Judgment
Bsnl Versus Bhurumal
It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of theIndustrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even afterhe is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization. Thus when he Full Judgment