Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Vijay Kumar Mishra And Brij Bihar Kuwar ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 24 February, 1988

Prabhat Kumar Roy vs Ranchi University And Ors. on 24 September, 1993

29. It is relevant to mention in this connection that in another recent decision in Vijay Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 99, this Court after considering a large number of decision, has held that the State as an employer is not bound to recognise any appointment made by its servant ignoring the mandatory provisions of recruitment rules as also Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
Patna High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 7 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Braj Kishore Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 19 February, 1997

28. Counsel of Jai Prakash University and the State of Bihar placed reliance on certain judgments in which a view has been taken that where appointments are made contrary to the recruitment rules they must be deemed to be null and void and the State cannot be liable (Madhyatnik Shiksha Parishad Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Kumar Misra ; Vijay Kumar v. The State of Bihar 1993 (1) PLJR 99 and so on. Counsel also referred to Manor Prasad v. Ranchi University 1993 (2) BLJR 873; and Gopi Krishna Pathak v. Ranchi University 1993 (2) BLJR 897 and unreported decisions in the cases of Sukhsagar Prasad v. The State of Bihar reported in 1994 (2) BLJ 196.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 21 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Ajay Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar on 17 March, 1994

30. Lastly, we may refer to the submission of Shri Vikas Singh that the Bihar Government acted illegally inasmuch as the impugned provision made by it is in clear contravention of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of Bihar13. In the said decision, it is pointed out, it has been held that in view of the Indian Medical Council Act and the Regulations made by the council, the order of the State Government providing for reservations in the postgraduate medical course is impermissible. It is submitted that the said decision had become final and was, therefore, binding upon the State of Bihar. It does not, however, appear that this decision was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that rendered the decision under appeal. Since, we have expressed ourselves on merits of the controversy, which is inconsistent with the ratio of the judgment in Vijay Kumar13 it is not necessary to pursue this argument of learned counsel.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 133 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Lakshmi Kant Patel vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 December, 2018

10. So far as payment of gratuity is concerned, no such order of punishment had been imposed and thus the withholding of gratuity by way of punishment to the petitioner does not seem to be having any rationale behind it. The decision in the case of Vijay Kumar Mishra (supra) would hold good only during the pendency of the departmental proceeding and in view of the fact that no chargesheet had been filed in the Economic Offence Unit P.S. Case No.18 of 2014, no judicial proceeding could be said to be pending for occasioning pecuniary loss to the Government. Thus, in the aforementioned background, we find and hold that the petitioner's gratuity cannot be withheld as he has already been awarded the punishment in the departmental proceeding.
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Harendra Kumar Pandey And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 23 December, 1994

Appointments in such a large scale, in my view, cannot be held to have been made to meet the emergent situation. Obviously, therefore, the connection of the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is no acceptable that the appointments were made in order to ensure smooth functioning of he Assembly in absence of respondent-No. 2, the Speaker. this Court, while dealing with such a question, has held in the case of Bijay Kumar (supra) as follows:
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sri Bhagwan Rai vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 September, 2016

Keeping the above in mind, there is no dichotomy with the amended Rule 7(c) and 43(c) of the Rules both of which talk that the minimum amount of pension admissible shall not be 100%. In the present case, the petitioner is admittedly getting 90% provisional pension. As far as gratuity is concerned, Rule 43(c) is silent on the aspect and shall be covered by the other provision for the reason that the amended 7(c) clearly stipulates that in terms of the Circular No. 9144/f dated 22.08.1974 and 11260F, dated 31.10.1974, only provisional pension is to be paid which shall not be 90% and the Patna High Court CWJC No.13952 of 2016 dt.20-09-2016 4/4 said circular of the State Government further stipulates that such person shall be paid only provisional pension but not gratuity or death-cum-retirement benefit. The said view has also been taken by a Division bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in L.P.A. No. 145 of 2014 decided on 30.06.2016.
Patna High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A Amanullah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next