Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
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
RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
KRISHAN & ORS Vs THE MANAGEMENT OF THE AIR FORCE SCHOOL
RAJESH KUMAR GANDHI Vs SHRIRAM INSTITUTE FOR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
TALUKDAR SINGH Vs. TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD
RAKHIAL GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. JAGATSINH ADESINH JHALA
PRABHU DAYAL KHANDELWAL Vs. CHAIRMAN, U.P.S.C. & ORS.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. BALWANT SINGH
Pratibha Tiwari Vs The State of Chhattisgarh
SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS Vs. GREATER NOIDA IND. DEVELOPMENT AUTH.&ORS
The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the policy decision extending the benefit of regularisation to contractual employees against 60% vacant posts will be deemed to regularise the services of the appellants from the retrospective date, that is, 20.11.2002, when the said posts were first advertised. The appellants were Full Judgment
PREM RAM Vs. M.D. UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL & NIRM.NIGM&ORS
If engagement in a work- charged establishment rest on a criterion, no better than the absolute discretion of the authority engaging them or the fortuitous circumstances of a vacancy or need in a work-charged establishment, then, there is indeed no difference between a daily-wager on the one hand and work-charged employees on the other. No distinction can resultantly be Full Judgment
Raeesul Hasan Vs. State Of U.P.Through Secy.Education And 5 Ors.
State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Secondary Education & Ors.[Larg.Bench] Vs. C/M Sukhpal Intermediate College Sultanpur & Ors7404(S/S)06
HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI & ORS. Vs. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.
K.RADHIKA Vs. T.RAJYA LAXMI & ORS.
It consists of innumerable errors. We only hope that it is not the desire of the High Court that such candidates are required to be appointed merely because they have the higher grade qualification. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal. Full Judgment
M/S ARIANE ORGACHEM PVT.LTD. Vs. WYETH EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS
“When a question of law is raised for the first time in a court of last resort, upon the construction of a document, or upon facts either admitted or proved beyond controversy, it is not only competent but expedient, in the interests of justice, to entertain the plea.” Therefore, with regard to the above mentioned aspect regarding the plea of the competency of the Deputy Labour Commissioner to pass an Full Judgment
KHUB RAM Vs. DALBIR SINGH & ORS.
Mr. Patwalia has rightly placed reliance to support the aforesaid submissions, on a judgment of this Court in the case of Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383. The law relating to effect of fraud upon a competent authority to get an appointment/office as well as effect of fraud upon court has been discussed in detail in paragraphs 28 to 36 Full Judgment
Ashish Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh & ors
The issue with which this Court is required to deal is whether nondisclosure of registration of a criminal case, in which the petitioner has already been acquitted would make him eligible for remaining in employment? 8. In the matter of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchan And Others1, the Supreme Court has held that issue of obtaining appointment by misrepresentation is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. Pendency of criminal Full Judgment
UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. THE SEC.MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE UNION & ORS
They have also been working for similar number of hours, however, the discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary between the permanent and the non-permanent workmen is alarming and the same has to be construed as being an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act r/w Entry No.10 of the Fifth Schedule to the ID Act, which is prohibited under Section 25(T) of the ID Full Judgment