Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) vs Santi Kumar Banerjee And Ors. on 2 September, 1965

Jagdish Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 January, 1975

18. Now I may briefly refer to the cases of other High Courts on which reliance was placed by learned Counsel on either side. Learned Counsel for the Union placed reliance on B.L. Rastogi v. Railway Board, New Delhi 1974 Lab IC 918 (Raj), M.P. Patil v. D.R. Khanna , Union of India v. Santi Kumar , Harinder v. Northern Railway AIR 1967 Delhi 79 and Iqbal Singh v. Divisional Superintendent 1973 (1) SLR 712. I may net deal with each case individually, suffice it to say that they relate to certain orders of the Railway Board which have been taken to be Rules within the meaning of Rule 157 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. By and large, it will depend upon the nature of the provision that came up for consideration. Here I have specifically dealt with Ex R/4 in the light of what is contained in Rule 2 of Chapter III of the Manual and I am unable to deduce, as I have already observed, a general proposition that each and every order of the Railway Board, be it in any form, will form, will be a rule, merely because it is of general application to non-gazetted staff. It will depend on the subject matter of the order, the manner in which it is made and whether it is published in some known form.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. [Along With ... on 27 March, 2006

6. Per contra, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently contended that the writ petitions are maintainable as the conduct of elections partakes of the nature of a statutory function. He has argued Page 1419 that the Railways are the largest employers as well as the largest public utility in India. Rules pertaining to the subject Elections are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Railways Administration discharges important and pivotal public functions when it decides to grant casual leave to its employees to enable them to attend to Trade Union activities including elections. Support has been drawn from the Division Bench decision titled Union of India v. Santi Kumar Banerjee . In this case, it had been held that if a breach occurs in respect of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, since these are Statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, persons affected by this breach can seek redressal by way of a writ petition.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 8 - V Sen - Full Document

P.K. Mukherjee And Ors. vs Bimal Kumar Mukherjee And Ors. on 3 January, 1972

32. Mr. Ghosh further contended that the circular, in any event, cannot be enforced by a writ Court as it lacks the force of statute. Mr. Chakravarti appearing on behalf of the petitioners drew our attention to a passage in the judgment of D.N. Sinha, J., in Union of India v. Santi Kumar Banerjee and Ors. . At paragraph 4 of the judgment, the learned Judge observed: "the rules made by the Railway Board, which are made effective by issuing circular or letters have statutory authority." Mr. Chakravarti contended that the General Manager, and, by delegation, the Chief Personnel Officer, can exercise the powers of the Railway Board to make rules by issuing circulars or letters which have the same statutory force as those issued by the Railway Board. The circular, therefore, Mr. Chakravarti argues, has the force of statute. Having regard to the construction of paragraph 12 of the circular which we have adopted, it is not necessary for us to pronounce on the question whether the circular has statutory force or not. It may, however, be pointed out that the Chief Personnel Officer has not indicated in the circular by what authority he has issued the circular. We are unable to subscribe to any general proposition that any letter or circular, order or instruction containing a directive and emanating under the signature of the Chief Personnel Officer or the Deputy General Manager or the General Manager has the force of a statute. The power to make rules has not only to be conferred but has also to be invoked and exercised. There is no indication in the circular that it has been issued in exercise of powers confer-_ red on the General Manager. As I said before, the case may very well be decided without deciding whether this circular has any statutory force. If the circular lacks statutory force, then no writ will lie. The learned Judge in course of his judgment observed:
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1