Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Mahesh Narain And 2 Others on 19 February, 2021

Smt. Neeta Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 March, 2024

In the aforesaid circumstances, it was held that they were entitled for the old pension scheme, whereas in present case, the petitioner has passed the B.T.C. training course after commencement of New Pension Scheme and that selection process was commenced only thereafter, therefore, the judgment in the case of Janardan Rai and others (supra) relied upon by respondents would be relevant, and paragraphs 14 and 15 thereof are mentioned hereinafter, which squarely covers the present case on facts as well as on law against the case of petitioner:
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Kumari Sailaja vs D/O Post on 25 March, 2024

Later in another decision in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Mahesh Narain & Ors. [2013 4 SCC], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the amendment made cannot affect the claim of the employees for promotion since a rule cannot work to the prejudice of an employee who possessed the required qualification/experience/met the required criteria prior to the enactment and enforcement of the amended Rules. Hence, the applicant contends that it is settled law that the vacancies which remained unfilled are to filled up according to the Rules in vogue at that time. It is submitted that the candidate who is eligible and entitled to be appointed as Group D in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, 2002 also acquires a vested right to be considered for such appointment in accordance with these Rules as they existed on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. It is submitted that the applicant cannot be deprived of this Right on the basis of any new Rules, which have no retroactive operation. Hence, the 13 vacancies in the Cadre of Group D in Thiruvananthapuram South Division would have to be filled up by the respondents in accordance with Annexure A2 Recruitment Rules of 2002. It is submitted that the applicant has to be appointed against these 8 vacancies in order of her seniority with effect from the date of her entitlement with all consequential benefits.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh B Nandagad vs Director General Of Audit South Western ... on 27 February, 2026

In State Of U.P.& Ors vs Mahesh Narain and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held on 6 March, 2013, that the mistake or delay on the part of the department should not be permitted to recoil on the appellants and if the delay in promotion takes place at the instance of the Employer, an employee cannot be made to suffer on account of intervening events.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Tara Singh on 21 April, 2026

14. The abovementioned judgment was followed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Mahesh Narain & Ors." (2013) 4 SCC 169, wherein again it was held that where there is no fault on the part of the applicants, they cannot be made to suffer due to the fault on the part of the employer. The present case is a perfect example of the persons like the applicants being made to suffer, as far as seniority is concerned, only for the reason of delay on the part of a recruiting agency in sending their panel. Thus, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that an employee should not be made to suffer due to no fault on his part but the fault of the employer, squarely applies to the case in hand also.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P S Bhati - Full Document

Suresh Chandra Shukla vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 February, 2023

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Suresh Chandra Shukla with the prayer to allow the present application and direct the court below to decide Criminal Case No. 92 of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs. Mahesh Narayan and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dorwy Prohibition Act, Police Station Handia, District Allahabad pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. VIIIth, District Allahabad within stipulated period which deems fit and proper to secure the ends of justice.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document
1