Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 251 (1.87 seconds)
Documents citing Rabindra Nath Bose & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 October, 1969

N.J. Sajeeve vs Union Of India on 27 October, 2009

31. We are of the view that, just as in a case where a belated challenge to a settled position of seniority or consequential orders of promotion will not be entertained by a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution, on the principles laid down in Rabindra Nath v. Union of India {AIR 1970 SC 470} and Mudgal {AIR 1986 SC 2086}, the court should also be wary in countenancing a contention which, if accepted, W.P.(C)No.36499 of 2007 :: 34 ::
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

The Kerala State Electricity Board vs P Sasidharan on 15 January, 2015

"31. We are of the view that, just as in a case where a belated challenge to a settled position of seniority or consequential orders of promotion will not be entertained by a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution, on the principles laid down in Rabindra Nath v. Union of India {AIR 1970 SC 470} and Mudgal {AIR 1986 SC 2086}, the court should also be wary in countenancing a contention which, if accepted, would result in overturning seniority positions of long standing. Essentially, the doctrine of sit back would apply both in cases where challenge against settled positions are mounted W.A. No.610/15 -:18:- belatedly and in cases where the challenge to administrative actions overturning settled seniority positions are sought to be defended".
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - A Shaffique - Full Document

G.C. Gupta & Ors vs N K. Pandey & Ors on 8 December, 1987

It would clearly be unjust, as observed by Sikri, J. in Rabindra Nath Bose' case to deprive the appellants of the rights which have accrued to them. As a result of the G.O. Of April 19, 1950, although initially the guarantee to the merit scholars who had passed out from the Thomson College of Civil Engineering, Roorkee in order of merit was in regard to appointment to the guaranteed post, but later it was amplified into assuring to the holders of such guaranteed posts like the appellants preference in the matter of permanency and seniority. This necessarily perpetuated some amount of injustice, as brought out in the Report of Lal Committee, to the holders of non- guaranteed posts i.e. the temporary Assistant Engineers, due to permanent appointments having been given to the holders of guaranteed posts 232 i.e. directly recruited engineer students in preference to them, though they joined service earlier. There is, however, nothing that can be done for the Court is faced with a fait accompli. At times, the court is overtaken by the events. As a matter of policy, the Government of the day thought that it would bring greater efficiency and merit to the Service if certain number of posts were kept reserved for the merit scholars graduating from the Thomson College of Civil Engineering, Roorkee, which in those days was the most prestigeous institution of its kind in the country and was later incorporated into the University of Roorkee. The evidence about relevant consideration which prompted the then Government into taking such a policy decision a long time back may have been lost by passage of time but there is always a presumption that every official act is done in good faith.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 76 - A P Sen - Full Document

Gopinadhan Nair P.S vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 12 August, 1991

22. The theory of 'sit back' has been applied almost uniformly in the context of a contention of delay and laches on the part of any person, who makes an attempt to prosecute a claim, which, if accepted, would result in a situation where inter se positions which have been settled over the years will have to be revised. These contentions have often been raised in proceedings under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution and therefore, the Supreme Court had taken note of the fact that though there is no statutory period of limitation applicable to proceedings under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, where settled positions of seniority are W.P.(C).No.1706/2013 8 sought to be questioned after a considerable lapse of time, the Court would be inclined to decline jurisdiction in such cases, on the ground of delay and laches. The Court would be loathe to interfere with settled affairs in matters of seniority and promotion effected in any cadre or service after a lapse of time. As observed by the Supreme Court in Rabindra Nath v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 470, though the Courts would not be anxious to throw out petitions on the ground of delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court, justice will have to be administered in accordance with law and principles of equity, justice and good conscience. As the Court observed in the said case, it would be unjust to deprive the respondents (in the said case) the rights which have accrued to them. Each persons ought to be entitled to 'sit back' and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years."
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Adarsh K R vs Defence on 24 November, 2025

180/00305/2022, 3/2024, 72/2024 & 211/2024 1990 Supreme Court 1607; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and another - AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1531; M/s Bhagwan Dass & Co. Pvt. Ltd v. The State of UP and another -AIR 1981 Supreme Court 41; Rabindra Nath Bose and others v. Union of India and others - AIR 1970 Supreme Court 470; T.C. Sreedharan Pillai & Others v. State of Kerala & Others- 1973 KLT 151 (F.B.) 7.3 The official respondents have filed an adoption memo stating that they adopt the reply statement filed in OA No.305/2022 in the present OA as reply statement filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4, in the interest of justice. 7.4 In the rejoinder the applicants have submitted that they had been officiating the said post from 14.09.2015 onwards with duties and responsibilities attached to the substantive posts. The posts are substantive in nature. By virtue of the said absorption, the applicant had acquired a right to have their ranks and seniority in that category reckoned on the basis of the principle of seniority. Their position in relation to absorption had been settled at least by Annexure-A16 order. No statutory appeals or revision petitions are shown to have been filed against the said order and hence it must be taken that the position and seniority had become final. It is not in the interest of the maintenance of the morale, 2025.11.26 V R ARUNKUMAR 10:41:49 +05'30' 62 O.A Nos. 180/00305/2022, 3/2024, 72/2024 & 211/2024 efficiency and contentment in the service to disrupt after such a long lapse of time matters pertaining to vital service conditions like seniority and rank which have already become settled. The Apex Court in AIR 1970 SC p.478 (Rabindra Nath Bose) observed as follows: 'Each person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after a lapse of a number of years'. Therefore, it will be neither just nor equitable to deprive persons who have been absorbed many years ago, of the right that have acquired to them regarding their rank and seniority by purporting to conduct a review of seniority/absorption after a lapse of many years. 8.1 During the final oral arguments, learned counsel for the applicants in OA No.305/2022 pleaded for ante-dating the date of absorption to 17.08.2012 on the premise that 235 vacancies were available prior to RR revision in June 2012. Moreover, as per revised Recruitment Rules-2012, direct recruitment was the only mode of entry, in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, absorption has been done in December 2015, which could have only been possible against vacancies available for absorbees. This has been reaffirmed by the respondents in the reply statement vide para5 of their submission.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naveen Chand Shukla vs Cgst on 27 April, 2023

21. We also have to note of the principle of 'Sit Back Theory' which has been accepted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court long back. Various Courts also have followed the same in a number of decisions. The earliest decision of the WPC 4643 & 10475 Supreme Court in this respect is the one reported in Rabindra Nath Bose & Others v. Union of India & others (AIR 1970 SC 470). In that decision the Supreme Court held as follows:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.C. Gupta And Ors. vs N.K. Pandey And Ors. on 30 May, 1987

31. In this case the challenge to the seniority of the appellant which was determined by-order dated 20th July, 1956 was made in 1973 i.e. after nearly 17 years and they have sought relief for redetermination of the seniority in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid service rules. This cannot be permitted as it would amount to unjust deprivation of the rights of the appellant which had accrued to them in the meantime. The observation that 'Every person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years' as made in the above case Rabindra Nath Bose and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. will be applicable to this case. Considering all these aspects it would be just and proper not to give any relief to the respondents on the ground of inordinate laches and delay in challenging the seniority list made in July, 1956. I have already mentioned hereinbefore that at the time of moving the writ petition in 1973 all the appellants had been confirmed as Superintending Engineers in the United Provinces Service of Engineers and the appellant Nos. 1 to 3 had been officiating as Additional Chief Engineers. The appellant No. 4 who was also a permanent Superintending Engineer we were told by the parties at the time of hearing of this appeal, had been promoted and appointed as Additional Chief Engineer. Whereas out of the 12 respondents 10 have already retired from services as it appears from the affidavit sworn by appellant No.1 Mr. G.C.. Gupta in accordance with the directions of this Court. We are also told that out of the remaining 2 respondents, 1 has already retired from service. So, only 1 respondent is at present in service. In these circumstances I think that the cause of justice will be served if the authorities concerned consider the case of the said respondent for promotion in accordance with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A P Sen - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next