Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Uttam Singh & Ors. vs Mcd & Ors. on 26 July, 2013

Unknown vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 14 September, 2021

4. It appears that when in December, 1978 the MCD attempted to demolish structures raised on khasra no. 1367 and raise construction of the Community Centre in one of the so called unacquired pockets as per the appellants, they instituted a Suit no. 577/78 titled as Chattar Singh Vs. MCD, which was decreed in their favour by the Court of Ms Sunita Jain, the then ld Civil Judge, Delhi vide Judgment dated 05.11.1981, wherein inter alia vide Issue no. 4 it was decided that in so far as land measuring 22 bigas and 19 biswas in the aforesaid khasras, the same had not been sold to the private colonizer, and thus the defendant corporation had no right over the land PPA-24/2016 Chhatar Singh v. North-DMC Page 5 of 15 and it was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. In making such decision, the Court relied upon the Jama Bandi for the year 1960-61. It is admitted fact that no appeal was filed by the respondent no.1/MCD against the said Judgment but the appellants were served with show cause notice dated 28.02.1991 No. EO/PP/91/2503 under sub-section (1) and Clause (B) (II) of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1971 by the Estate Officer.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satya Prakash Khare vs D/O Post on 20 October, 2022

4. It is further submitted that the applicants No.1 and 2 were appointed as temporary Mail Man on 31.12.1974 at Jhansi and applicant No.3 on 01.06.1975 at Agra and, thereafter, they were given quasi permanent status w.e.f. 31.12.1977, 30.12.1977 and 01.03.1977, respectively. While in service as Group D, the applicants appeared in LGO examination and after declared successful in the exam, they were appointed as temporary leave reserve Sorter on 16.10.1979. After completion of 16 years service in Group „C‟, they were given One Time Bound Promotion (OTBP) in the pay scale of Rs.1400-1800 and after completion of 26 years 5 OA No. 4473/2022 Item No.8 of service, another Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) promotion in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 from 01.01.2006 vide letter dated 22.08.2006. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the applicants have already got three promotion/financial upgradations, they are not entitled for 3rd financial upgradation after introduction of MACP Scheme on 01.09.2018, which they are claiming after their retirement. The respondents have also relied upon the judgment dated 26.07.2013 of the Hon‟ble High Court in Uttam Singh & Ors. vs. MCD & Ors. in WP(C) No. 2512 of 2012.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kishan Lal Ojha vs D/O Post on 13 December, 2021

The respondents have cited various judgements (judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No, 5286- 5287 of 2005 in the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. R. Shantha Kumar Velusamy reported in 23011(3) SLI 353, Judgement by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 2512/2012 titled Uttam Singh and ors Vs. MCD and Ors. dated 26.07.2013 and order of The Ahemdabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2219/2015 titled B.C. Dutta Vs. U.o.1 and Ors dated 17.11.2015) wherein it has been decided that an appointment on a lower post on the basis of limited departmental competetive examination (LDCE) is appointment by promotion and not by direct recruitment. The applicant has filed a very detailed rejoinder reiterating his claim ang annexing the Order 5 17.09.2019 passed by the the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal {in O.A. No. 93/2019 (titled Natvarbhai S. na Vs. U.O.I. &Ors.) and other connected _-- The applicant has also given some additional i ts about what would have happened if he had ee as Postal Assistant (and not got selected as vnapector Post Office). He has alleged voilation of Article 14 and 16 (1) due to such discriminatory treatment internal policy of department of . because of in happening i isi the joinder also mentions that decision of The rejoin posts.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1