Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Mahendra Singh And Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 February, 2012

Balwant Singh vs Union Of India Through on 10 September, 2013

12. Drawing parallel from the same, I find that this case is also covered by the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in Mahendra Singh & Others versus Union of India & Ors. (supra). The basic issue is that when a post has been effectively abolished, there could be no question of appointment. It is true that had the applicants been considered earlier, when Group-D posts were in existence, this kind of situation would not have arisen. Since the matter has a wider ramification, we may await the decision of the Honble High Court of Judicature at its Jaipur Bench. However, it is not possible to revive a post, since abolished, from a back date and restore the position ante.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rafal Kumar Verma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 July, 2022

5. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondents that they shall treat the present petition as a representation by the petitioner and extend the same relief(s) as were granted to the petitioners in W.P. (C) 7577/2016 titled as SI/GD Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors., W.P. (C) 266/2022 titled as Yogesh Kumar Saxena & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. and W.P. (C) 9094/2019 titled as Mahendra Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors., if the petitioner is found entitled, the respondents shall issue necessary orders within four weeks from today.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S K Kait - Full Document

Prem Prakash Pandey vs M/O Finance on 16 January, 2023

So far as case of Mahendra Singh (supra) is concerned, the applicants therein were continuously 15 OA No. 354/2018, OA No. 355/2018, OA No. 248/2019, OA No. 249/2019 & OA No. 326/2021 with MA No. 642/2021 working with the respondent-department on casual basis as full time employee for the last several years. So their prayer in those cases was that they should not be removed from service on the ground that their services are to be utilized through service provider by removing them from services. They sought for protection of the continuous service as they served continuously for the last 16 years. Here, in the present cases, the applicants are not working on casual basis as full time or part time basis with the Income Tax Department but, in fact, they are working through service providers/contractors.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prem Prakash Pandey vs M/O Finance on 16 January, 2023

So far as case of Mahendra Singh (supra) is concerned, the applicants therein were continuously 15 OA No. 354/2018, OA No. 355/2018, OA No. 248/2019, OA No. 249/2019 & OA No. 326/2021 with MA No. 642/2021 working with the respondent-department on casual basis as full time employee for the last several years. So their prayer in those cases was that they should not be removed from service on the ground that their services are to be utilized through service provider by removing them from services. They sought for protection of the continuous service as they served continuously for the last 16 years. Here, in the present cases, the applicants are not working on casual basis as full time or part time basis with the Income Tax Department but, in fact, they are working through service providers/contractors.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahesh Kumar Sharma vs Income Tax Department on 16 January, 2023

So far as case of Mahendra Singh (supra) is concerned, the applicants therein were continuously 15 OA No. 354/2018, OA No. 355/2018, OA No. 248/2019, OA No. 249/2019 & OA No. 326/2021 with MA No. 642/2021 working with the respondent-department on casual basis as full time employee for the last several years. So their prayer in those cases was that they should not be removed from service on the ground that their services are to be utilized through service provider by removing them from services. They sought for protection of the continuous service as they served continuously for the last 16 years. Here, in the present cases, the applicants are not working on casual basis as full time or part time basis with the Income Tax Department but, in fact, they are working through service providers/contractors.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sulochana vs Revenue on 16 January, 2023

So far as case of Mahendra Singh (supra) is concerned, the applicants therein were continuously 15 OA No. 354/2018, OA No. 355/2018, OA No. 248/2019, OA No. 249/2019 & OA No. 326/2021 with MA No. 642/2021 working with the respondent-department on casual basis as full time employee for the last several years. So their prayer in those cases was that they should not be removed from service on the ground that their services are to be utilized through service provider by removing them from services. They sought for protection of the continuous service as they served continuously for the last 16 years. Here, in the present cases, the applicants are not working on casual basis as full time or part time basis with the Income Tax Department but, in fact, they are working through service providers/contractors.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shubhendu Ojha vs Income Tax Department on 16 January, 2023

So far as case of Mahendra Singh (supra) is concerned, the applicants therein were continuously 15 OA No. 354/2018, OA No. 355/2018, OA No. 248/2019, OA No. 249/2019 & OA No. 326/2021 with MA No. 642/2021 working with the respondent-department on casual basis as full time employee for the last several years. So their prayer in those cases was that they should not be removed from service on the ground that their services are to be utilized through service provider by removing them from services. They sought for protection of the continuous service as they served continuously for the last 16 years. Here, in the present cases, the applicants are not working on casual basis as full time or part time basis with the Income Tax Department but, in fact, they are working through service providers/contractors.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sulochana vs Revenue on 16 January, 2023

So far as case of Mahendra Singh (supra) is concerned, the applicants therein were continuously 15 OA No. 354/2018, OA No. 355/2018, OA No. 248/2019, OA No. 249/2019 & OA No. 326/2021 with MA No. 642/2021 working with the respondent-department on casual basis as full time employee for the last several years. So their prayer in those cases was that they should not be removed from service on the ground that their services are to be utilized through service provider by removing them from services. They sought for protection of the continuous service as they served continuously for the last 16 years. Here, in the present cases, the applicants are not working on casual basis as full time or part time basis with the Income Tax Department but, in fact, they are working through service providers/contractors.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pawan Kumar Rawal vs M/O Finance on 21 December, 2018

9. On perusal of the record and consideration of the arguments propounded by learned counsel for the parties, what emerges undisputed in this case is that the direction given in the impugned order/judgment of 25.04.2017 is limited to the cases of the applicants in the OA in question being considered in the light of the orders referred to in the cases of Jeevan Singh Gehlot and (RA No.8/2017 in OA No.228/2016)) (5) Others vs. Union of India & Others and Mahendra Singh & Others vs. Union of India & Others within a period of four months. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while arguing that what he terms are special circumstances in the case of Sandeep Singor, (Applicant No.5 in the OA), should have been taken into account in the impugned order, has not been able to demonstrate in any manner how these circumstances are materially relevant to either the findings or thereafter the direction given in the order of 25.04.2017 so as to warrant the passing of a different order in the case of Shri Sandeep Singor. While it is open to the parties and their counsel in a given case to present pleadings as they deem appropriate, it is for the court to determine the extent to which the pleadings presented are relevant to the issues involved in the dispute and take the same into consideration. There is nothing to show that this has not been done here. Accordingly, there appears to be no evidence of any kind of error of commission or omission which is apparent on the face of the record.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next