Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Kerala And Anr vs P.V. Neelakandan Nair And Ors on 11 July, 2005

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors vs Abas Nibas Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 13 October, 2023

In so far as the decisions in the cases of Sangeeta Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (supra), State of Kerala & Anr. v. P. V. Neelakandan Nair & Ors. (supra), Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation & Ors. (supra) and C.J. Paul & Ors. v. District Collector & Ors., (supra) are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process. While interpreting a provision, the Court only interprets the law and cannot legislate. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. In my considered respectful opinion, these four decisions are not germane to the facts of the present case. We are not concerned in this case with a situation of casus omissus.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A Banerjee - Full Document

The State Of Kerala vs Prof. D.Gopalakrishna Pillai on 16 February, 2009

13. We have gone through the above two judgments. The decision in P.V.Neelakandan Nair's case (supra) affirms the decision in Kunjamma's case (supra). The decision in C.A.No.2907/2005 deals with what is the date WA NO.1432/05 ETC. 17 of retirement of an employee of the BSNL, in the light of FR 56. It was held that the date of retirement is the date on which the employee attains the age of 58 years and not the last day of the month on which he goes out of service by operation of FR 56.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

K.Muthukannan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 5 October, 2010

7. A perusal of the judgment reported in AIR 2005(SC) 3066 (cited supra) clearly shows in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was interpreting Rule 60(C) (Part I) of the Kerala State Service Rules. In that case the Rule itself had prescribed no increment or promotion during the re-employment period will be paid. But it did not refer to benefit of wage fixation taking place during the period. Hence it was held the teacher therein was eligible for a wage revision which happened during his reemployment period. In those rules, it is not called as reemployment. The age of retirement was fixed 55 in that service and if any teacher's retirement falls during the middle of the month, the same will stand postponed to the last day of the month in which the academic year comes to an end. The statutory rule had only denied the benefit of the increment or promotion during the extended period, but that cannot be read as continuity of service for revision of wages.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

Roby Baby.M vs International Airport Authority Of ... on 14 January, 2020

18. The Apex Court in the judgment in State of Kerala and Another v. P.V. Neelakandan Nair and Others [(2005) 5 SCC 561], while considering the eligibility of teachers who are continuing after the date of their superannuation till the end of the academic year, by virtue of Rule 62 of Chapter XIV(A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 for the benefit of pay revision which comes into effect WP(C).No.5604 OF 2012(A) 26 after the date of their superannuation, when Rule 60(c) of Part I KSR provided that they would not be entitled to any increments or promotion during the extended period, held as follows in para 18:
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - P V Asha - Full Document

Saramma Samuel vs Sri.P.P.Sivaraman on 27 June, 2007

5. This Court, while disposing of the Original Petition, had directed the 4th respondent to settle the benefits due to the petitioner in the light of the orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the State of Kerala vs. Neelakandan Nair (2005 (3) KLT 717). Now that the respondent has passed a detailed order dated 12.6.2007, in our view, there is substantial compliance with the order passed by this court. In that view of the matter we do not intend to take cognizance of this Contempt Case filed by the petitioner. Therefore, further proceedings in this Contempt case require to be dropped and accordingly, they are dropped.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Radhika Bhargava And 2 Ors vs Arjun Sahgal And 7 Ors on 11 January, 2019

22. Arijit Pasayat, J. has verbatim relied upon the above in Padma Sundara Raov. State of T.N. [(2002) 3 SCC 533] ,Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2008) 13 SCC 369] ,Nagar Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti[(2008) 12 SCC 364] ,Sangeeta Singh v. Union of India [(2005) 7 SCC 484], State of Kerala v. P.V. Neelakandan Nair [(2005) 5 SCC 561 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 698] , Union of India v. Priyankan Sharan [(2008) 9 SCC 15] , Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarjiv.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Radhika Bhargava And 2 Ors vs Arjun Sahgal And 7 Ors on 11 January, 2019

22. Arijit Pasayat, J. has verbatim relied upon the above in Padma Sundara Raov. State of T.N. [(2002) 3 SCC 533] ,Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2008) 13 SCC 369] ,Nagar Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti[(2008) 12 SCC 364] ,Sangeeta Singh v. Union of India [(2005) 7 SCC 484], State of Kerala v. P.V. Neelakandan Nair [(2005) 5 SCC 561 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 698] , Union of India v. Priyankan Sharan [(2008) 9 SCC 15] , Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarjiv.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - B R Gavai - Full Document

K.L. Khera & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors. on 1 July, 2019

62. Mr. Amitesh Kumar has sought to contend that there is a distinction between upgradation of the pay scale of a post and revision thereof. To my mind, in the facts of the present case, this is a distinction without a difference. The extremely limited manner in which Mr. Kumar would seek to interpret the expression ―admission‖, in my view, would fly in the face of SR 4(2) of the Service Regulations, and reduce the said Regulation to a redundancy, as has rightly been submitted by Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior Counsel. Grant of replacement scales merely follows from recommendations of Pay Commissions, and does not involve any conscious exercise of ―revision‖ of pay scales. I am also unable to see how the definition of ―revision of pay scale‖, as conceptualised by the Supreme Court in its judgment in P. V. Neelakandan Nair (supra), aids the respondent. The said definition, which stands reproduced in para 52 ibid, is of no assistance, whatsoever, in interpreting the expression ―revision‖, as used in SR 4(2)(iii) of the Service Regulations.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next