Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (2.62 seconds)
Documents citing Banshi Dhar vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 31 October, 2006

Airports Authority Of India And Ors. vs Pradip Kumar Banerjee And Ors. on 6 August, 2007

9. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to grant of back wages. Each case has to be determined on its own facts. A grave charge of criminal misconduct was alleged against him. He was also found guilty of the charges levelled against him by the Special Judge. The High Court while delivering its judgment dated 16.1.2001 in SB Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1985 inter alia held that the prosecution has not been able to prove that any demand had been made by him.
Calcutta High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 4 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Mr.V.T.Gopalan vs Mr.G.Masilamani on 29 October, 2010

In 2007 (1) SCC page 324-Banshi Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan and another, the payment of back wages on reinstatement pursuant to the order of acquittal came for consideration and it has been held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to grant of back wages and each case is to be determined on its own facts. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 21.5.2004 and the order of acquittal came to be passed on 17.12.2009 acquitting him honourably and hence, there is no stigma attached and as such he is entitled to be reinstated forthwith with all attendant benefits including back wages.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M Sathyanarayanan - Full Document

Sobhan Ram vs Coal India Limited Through Its ... on 10 January, 2022

In the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (2007) 1 SCC 324 (Banshi Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in para 9 that there can be no hard-and-fast rule in regard to grant of back wages and each case has to be determined on its own facts. In the said case, a grave charge of criminal misconduct was made against the petitioner for taking illegal gratification in which a trap was laid and the petitioner was convicted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act as well as Section 161 of Indian Penal Code. However, he was acquitted subsequently.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A R Choudhary - Full Document

Shishpal vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 December, 2022

In the case of Banshi Dhar (supra), the entire period during which the official remained under suspension was considered for calculating his pensionary benefits and continuity of service had not been denied to him, however, back wages were denied owing to the fact that during the period from 13.07.1976 till the time he attained age of superannuation i.e. in the year 1998, he did not work. Moreover, since the petitioner therein had already attained the age of superannuation, departmental enquiry could not be conducted. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, though his service was counted for pensionary benefits, back wages were denied to him.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - J Thakur - Full Document

D. B. Madan vs Punjab National Bank on 30 May, 2023

For the same proposition, reliance was placed on the judgement in Banshi Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2007) 1 SCC 324 and it was argued that it was only from the date the CBI Court acquitted the Petitioner that his Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMAL KUMARW.P.(C) 10457/2019 Page 7 of 26 Signing Date:03.06.2023 12:54:39 service can be counted for the purpose of pension and gratuity.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Pachchim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd vs R B Patel on 13 October, 2023

In Banshi Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the appellant - employee therein was convicted for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He was placed under suspension and later dismissed from the service on conviction by the competent court of law. Th appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence was allowed and the appellant was acquitted. In the meanwhile, the appellant reached his age of superannuation. On challenge, the Court though granted pensionary benefits, but was denied back-wages. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant therein before the Apex Court was that it being not the case where the employee had remained in custody for alleged commission of the offence which prevented him from attending the duty, he could not have been denied back-wages.
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Gurpal Singh vs High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan on 27 November, 2012

Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal[17], Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.[18], K. Ponnamma (Smt.) Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.[19], Dhananjay Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna[20], Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jaipal Singh[21], Baldev Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.[22], N. Selvaraj Vs. Kumbakonam City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr.[23], Banshi Dhar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.[24], Divisional Controller, Gujarat SRTC Vs. Kadarbhai J. Suthar[25], Union of India Vs. B.M. Jha.[26]
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 25 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

The Bihar State Electricity Bo vs Ganga Kumar Srivastava on 13 April, 2010

In 2007(1) SCC 324(Banshi Dhar versus State of Rajasthan and another) the appellant was charged for having made a demand for illegal gratification leading to a case by the Anti Corruption Department. A trap was laid and he was found to have accepted illegal gratification. He was prosecuted under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161 of the Penal Code. Conviction followed. He was dismissed from service. He preferred an appeal against conviction. The appeal was allowed and he stood acquitted.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - N Sinha - Full Document

A.Muralidharan vs The Director General Of Police on 19 December, 2011

"31. The grievance of the appellants, which apparently appears to be the primary reason for filing the appeal, is on account of the direction issued by the learned single Judge in paragraph 36 of the order. The learned single Judge while specifically holding that the power is vested with the competent authority to decide the issue relating to reinstatement and all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, has passed further direction that the competent authority shall pass orders granting all benefits in terms of Regulation 14. The Apex Court in Banshi Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2007) 1 SCC 324 = 2007 (8) MLJ 746 (SC), has held that the question of granting back wages is best left to the competent authority to decide on the merits of each case. Courts do not normally enter into the arena, where the decision is to be taken by the particular authority under the specific rules and regulations prescribed and impose its views as to how the relief should be granted. All that the court is required to do is to ensure that the authority follows the rules and regulations that will apply to the facts of a particular case to avoid an arbitrary, capricious approach to the problem. In this case, the specific direction of the learned single Judge to pass orders in a particular manner may not be justified as Court do not order an authority who is competent to decide the issue to do so in a particular manner. Therefore, the further direction of the learned single Judge has to be interfered with and hence that portion of the order in para 36 directing the appellants to pass orders granting all relief to respondent in terms of Regulation 14 is set aside."
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V Dhanapalan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next