Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Anil Nath De vs Collector Of Central Excise, Calcutta ... on 4 February, 1958

Ram Autar Pandey vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. on 21 December, 1961

In Anil Nath De v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, AIR 1958 Cal 407 also a rule which had been amended after the applicant had entered service was applied to him and his services were terminated in accordance with that rule. It was contended that the rule introduced subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner in service could not be applied to him. Dealing with that contention it was remarked:
Allahabad High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 17 - S N Dwivedi - Full Document

Jyotirmoyee Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 2 August, 1961

35. There is no authoritative decision ot the Supreme Court laying down that a Gov-eminent servant can sue for damages for wrongful dismissal. If the relation between the Government servant and the Government is contractual, and the Government servant is entitled to the remuneration for service rendered, there is no reason why the Government servant will not be entitled to get damages for wrongful dismissal just like an ordinary servant against his master. The observations of P. B. Mukharji, J. in the case of Anil Nath Day v. Collector of Excise is to the effect that ithe relationship between the Gov-ernment and its servants is contractual and the Fundamental Rules become part of the contract of service. On this basis clearly an action for damages for wrongful dismissal lies against the Government. The other view is that the suit to recover damages for wrongful dismissal in breach of Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act is an action in tort. Even then an action in tort lies against the Gov-ernment in respect to all acts of Government except those in exercise of the sovereign power of the State. I do not think that the employment of the plaintiff as an Anthrapologist in the Anthrapological Department of the Union Government can be said to be an act in exercise of the sovereign power of the State, in my judgment a civil servant wrongly dismissed in breach of Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act or Article 311(2) of the Constitution is entitled to maintain an action for damages for wrongful dismissal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dr. Partap Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 4 April, 1962

So all this argument on the side of the petitioner is apparently meaningless because under this rule he entered service accepting that rules in his ease could be altered and when altered he would be governed by the altered or new rules. This is an express condition of his service and he cannot escape the effect of it. It is further provided in Rule 1.8, Volume I, in both sets of rules that the power of interpreting, changing and relaxing the rules is vested in the Finance Department. So the rules are made subject to this power. A similar argument that rules subsequently introduced after the appointment of a Government servant were no part of his contract of service with the Government was rejected by P. B. Mukharji, J. in Anil Nath DE v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1958 Cal 407, in which the learned Judge observed:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 100 - Full Document

Padmanabhacharya vs State Of Mysore And Ors. on 27 September, 1961

(79) In support of that contention , Mr. Assistant Advocate General relied upon a decision of the High Court of Calcutta in Anil Nath De v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, in which Mukherji, J. pointed out that a temporary Government servant accepts as part of his conditions of service the Revised Leave Rules as from time to time made and modified and that he takes the risk of the amendments made in those Rules from time to time so long as those Rules or those amendments did not violate and provisions of the Constitution or any relevant statue. That was a case in which the question as to the power of the Governor to make retrospective rules did not arise for determination. The rule which was impugned in that case was really a rule which had been prospectively applied; nor do I understand the observation of Mukherji, J. as recognising the power of the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 to make retrospective rules impairing vested conditions of service.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Asstt. Collector Of Customs vs Charan Das Malhotra on 19 February, 1971

A similar expression, though not exactly the same, also came to be construed by the House of Lords in De Verteuil v. Knaggs & Anr.(3), a case often referred to while determining the nature of power. The question which arose there was whether under S. 203 of the Trinidad Immigration Ordinance, No. 161, the government could pass an order transferring indentured labour from one employer to another without notice to the concerned employer against whom complaints as to treatment of the laborers were made. The section provided that if at any time "it appears to the governor on (1) 63 I.T.R. 219.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 90 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1   2 Next