Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
RAVINDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P & ORS
KSH.LAKSHAHEB SINGH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS
U.V.MAHADKAR Vs. SUBHASH ANAND CHAVAN & ORS.
TAPAS KUMAR MONDAL AND ORS. ETC. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
GURDAS SINGH & ORS. ETC. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
STATE OF M.P. Vs. MOHAN LAL
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the Order dated 15.09.2014 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 9675 of 2014 titled as “State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vinod Kumar Tiwari”, in our considered opinion, it is a fit case where some compensation should be awarded to the respondent instead of directing the appellant to reinstate Full Judgment
UOI & OTHERS Vs. NO. 3989606 P, EX-NK VIJAY KUMAR
DALJIT SINGH GREWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS
DELHI JAL BOARD Vs INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL II & ORS.
MADRAS INST.OF DEV. STUDIES & ANR. Vs. K. SIVASUBRAMANIYAN & ORS.
SAROJ KUMAR Vs. U.O.I & ORS.
K.K.GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
A.N. SACHDEVA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. Vs. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY,ROHTAK &ANR
Considering the principles enunciated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that the benefit is not an ex gratia payment but a payment in recognition of past service, in our opinion, discrimination could not have been made between those employees who have been absorbed/allocated are entitled to count their services as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and not those who have been appointed directly. Fact remains that all these employees have served in Punjab University/Kurukshetra University/MD. University without any break. M.D. University, prior to Full Judgment
STATE OF U.P. Vs. DEEP NARAIN MISRA & ORS.
MOHAN SINGH & ORS Vs. THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD & ORS
RAMESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
In normal circumstances when retrospective promotions are effected, all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an employee who has been denied promotion earlier. The principle of “no work no pay” would not be attracted where the respondents were in fault in not considering the case of the appellant for promotion and not allowing Full Judgment