Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Punjab And Others vs Balbir Singh And Others on 14 August, 2012

Punjab State Grains Procurement ... vs Gaganpreet Singh And Others on 18 February, 2026

Such discriminatory treatment meted out by an employer with regard to the regularisation of employees has been dealt with in extenso by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Balbir Singh and others in LPA No.706 of 2020 decided on 29.03.2022, wherein, speaking through Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, the following was held:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A S Grewal - Full Document

Gurcharan Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 5 February, 2013

As regards the reliance made by the counsel for the petitioners in the judgment in LPA No. 270 of 2012 titled the State of Punjab and others vs. Balbir Singh and others, the said judgment was dealing with the different notification dated 17.2.1989, which again is based upon different set of claims than the one which is set out by the petitioners herein. The issue therein was over the validity of the notification dated 17.2.1989 issued by the Government of Punjab revising pay scales of the Teaching Staff of the Education Department issued under the Punjab Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988, which provided for different pay scales for a composite group of employees of the Education Department holding the posts of "Art & Craft, PTI, MTI, Drawing Masters and Agriculture Teachers" on the one hand and another group of language teachers imparting education in Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu and Sanskrit. This distinction carved out vide the said notification dated 17.2.1989 was quashed by the learned Single Judge, which has been upheld by the LPA Bench in the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab. The claim being different and the issue involved also being different, the said judgment could not be made applicable to the case in hand.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A G Masih - Full Document

Charanjit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 26 March, 2015

[6] The State of Punjab again filed LPA No.270 of 2012 (The State of Punjab and others versus Balbir Singh and others) and LPA No.518 of 2012 (State of Punjab and another versus Darshan Kant and others) against the above-cited decisions of the learned Single Judge. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure P-8), allowed the appeals and set-aside the judgment of learned Single Judge. Consequently, the notification dated 17.02.1989, which drew distinction between the pay scales of Art & Craft/ PTI Teachers viz-a-viz Language Teachers, was upheld. [7] The Division Bench held that the recommendations of the Pay Commission were recommendatory in nature and could be deviated by the State for valid reasons. It was also held that there was no discrimination to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Ranjan Sinha vs Ajay Kumar Vishwakarma . on 3 July, 2017

In the context of applicability of an administrative order of the Government of State of Punjab issued prior to 1.11.1966 it was held by this Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Balbir Singh and Ors. that by virtue of Section 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, an administrative order made by the erstwhile State did not automatically lapse and continued to be in force, effective and binding on the successor State unless modified and repudiated. There can be no doubt that The Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 which fall within the definition of "law" in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 continued in force and were effective in the Union Territory of Chandigarh until and unless modified, changed or repudiated by the Union Territory Administration. The question, therefore, is whether there was any modification, change or repudiation of the said 1965 Rules by the Union Territory administration after 1.11.1966? It may be mentioned that the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 repealed the Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 but the saving clause therein preserved the rights which had accrued to any person under the repealed rules. All the employees, in these matters were appointed after 1.11.1966 but before the application of 1982 Rules. There is no controversy that if the 1965 Rules continued to be in force in the Union Territory after 1.11.1966 unless repudiated or repealed, the concerned employees in these matters, subject to fulfillment of the conditions of eligibility under the 1965 Rules, would be entitled to its benefit. The question for consideration, therefore is whether the 1965 rules were modified, repudiated or repealed in their applicability to these employees?
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 43 - Cited by 2 - J S Khehar - Full Document

The State, Central Bureau Of ... vs A Satish Kumar on 2 January, 2025

10. The learned Additional Solicitor General would contend that the impugned common judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and liable to be interfered with, for its failure to take into consideration various crucial factors in their true perspective. It is, inter alia, contended that Circular Memo No.13665/ SR/2014 dated 26.05.2014 was not properly considered and appreciated appropriately. It is submitted that the Circular Memo dated 26.05.2014 would clarify the position that all ‘laws’ applicable to the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh as on 01.06.2014 would continue to apply to the newly created States due to bifurcation, namely, the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 02.06.2014, despite the bifurcation of the SLP (Crl.) No. 10737 of 2023 Page 10 of 32 erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh till altered, repealed or amended. It is also the contention that even after bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the S.P., CBI, Hyderabad and office of S.P. CBI Hyderabad were not deprived of their identity as ‘Special Police Force’ and to drive home the point the learned Additional Solicitor General, relied on the decision of this Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Balbir Singh & Ors.1 It is also contended that the High Court had failed to appreciate the fact that as on the date of the registration of the FIR involved in the captioned appeals there was consent to CBI in terms of the provisions of the Section 6 of the DSPE Act. It is furthermore contended that the High Court had gone wrong in holding that G.O.M.S. Nos.158 dated 28.11.2014, 67 dated 01.06.2016, No.168 dated 05.12.2017 and dated 03.08.2018 extending the general consent as orders pertaining to the State of Andhra Pradesh only.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 September, 2024

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners argues that keeping 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 22-09-2024 09:24:24 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:119038 CWP-12646-2020 (O&M) & connected -6- cases in view the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh (supra), once, the State Government has already allowed the different Societies vide decision/Instructions dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P/14) to regularize the services of the non-teaching staff, the Societies, which is the employer of the petitioners should have taken appropriate decision to regularize the services of the petitioners in case, the employees concerned fulfills the requirements as envisaged under Instructions dated 16.12.2009.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Geetika Garg And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 September, 2024

Learned counsel for the Societies submits that keeping in view the direction given by this Court in the present order, an appropriate order on the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of the decision/instructions dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P/14) of the Government by keeping in mind the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh (supra) so as to avoid any discrimination between the employees, will be passed within the time frame granted by this Court and in case, the petitioners are found entitled for the benefit, the same will be extended to them otherwise, due reasons for not accepting their claim will be mentioned in the speaking so pass, which will be conveyed to the petitioners also for their information and necessary action.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Jagjit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 September, 2024

Learned counsel for the Societies submits that keeping in view the direction given by this Court in the present order, an appropriate order on the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of the decision/instructions dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P/14) of the Government by keeping in mind the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh (supra) so as to avoid any discrimination between the employees, will be passed within the time frame granted by this Court and in case, the petitioners are found entitled for the benefit, the same will be extended to them otherwise, due reasons for not accepting their claim will be mentioned in the speaking so pass, which will be conveyed to the petitioners also for their information and necessary action.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Manjit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 September, 2024

Learned counsel for the Societies submits that keeping in view the direction given by this Court in the present order, an appropriate order on the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of the decision/instructions dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P/14) of the Government by keeping in mind the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh (supra) so as to avoid any discrimination between the employees, will be passed within the time frame granted by this Court and in case, the petitioners are found entitled for the benefit, the same will be extended to them otherwise, due reasons for not accepting their claim will be mentioned in the speaking so pass, which will be conveyed to the petitioners also for their information and necessary action.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next