Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Bhanwar Pal Singh vs The State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 13 August, 2009

State vs . Anil Kumar Kaushal & Ors. on 21 May, 2019

23. Ld. Defence Counsel also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cited as "Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi" CA No.491 of 2002 and judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi cited as "Laxman & Anr. Vs. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi" Crl A.426/2001 and Bhanwar Pal Singh Vs. The State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. However, the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lalit Kumar S/O Sh. Ram Kishan vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 1 August, 2012

2. The brief facts of this case are that on the basis of the requisition given by the respondents MCD, the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB for short) has issued an advertisement on 03.06.2002 in the leading newspapers inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teachers. The applicants had also applied for the same. They appeared in the examination held on 27.10.2002 and qualified for the aforesaid post. However, the respondent DSSSB has declared the result of only general category candidates in December, 2002. Thereafter, the Respondent-MCD has also offered appointment to them in June, 2003 and they have reported for duty, immediately thereafter. The applicants have filed one such appointment letter in respect of general category candidate, Shri Yogesh Bhardwaj, dated 27.06.2003. The candidates who belonged to the reserved category and who have been denied such appointments have filed a number of Writ Petitions in the High Court of Delhi challenging the action of the respondents. One such WP bearing number C.W.P. No. 5061/2001  Kanwar Pal and Ors. Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Anr. was decided by the Honble High Court, vide its annexure A-2 order dated 31.05.2002. By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court issued a mandamus to the respondents to appoint the petitioners therein who are born and brought up in Delhi and whose caste has been notified as a reserved caste in Delhi but the certificate issued to them was on the basis of the certificate issued to their fathers who were the migrants from other states. The respondents have challenged the aforesaid order in LPA No. 625/2002 and connected cases but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 13.05.2005 (annexure A-3). Thereafter, the respondents have issued offers of appointment to the petitioners therein during the period between October, 2005 to July, 2006. The applicants herein being some of those petitioners have also been given the appointment letters and accepted them and joined the posts of Assistant Teachers in the year 2006 on different dates. A copy of the appointment letter issued to one of the petitioner Shri Lalit Kumar has been annexed as Annexure A-4 with the petition. However, the respondents have not been grating them same pay as was being granted to the general candidates of their batch who have been given appointment in the year 2003. They have, therefore, made representation to the respondents to grant them also the same pay and allowances from the same dates as has been given to the general category candidates who belong to their batch. Since the respondents have not taken any action on their requests, they approached this Tribunal by this OA alleging discrimination amongst the similarly situated persons. They have also stated that they were in no way at fault for their delayed appointment and once the respondents have appointed them, they should be given equal treatment with the similarly placed candidates who belong to the general category.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Chander Singh on 11 September, 2017

63. During   the   course   of   arguments,   learned   counsel   for accused has relied upon following judgments; (1) Sharda Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 (1) JCC 362 (2) State of Punjab Vs. Parveen Kumar, Criminal Appeal No.633 of  1999 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (3) Bhanwar   Pal   Singh   Vs.   The   State   (Government   of   NCT   of   Delhi) reported in 2009(4) JCC 2593 (4) Chinnamma Vs. State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No.799 of   1997 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (5) The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs. Jangili Nirmala  & Another reported in II (1997) CCR 158 (DB) (6) Shaik   Mahaboob   Basha   Vs.   State   of   A.P.   Criminal   Appeal   No.441 of 1999 before Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court (7) Kamal Kishore & Another Vs. State of Delhi reported in 2014  IV AD (CRI.)
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chand Singh Bijyan vs Govt. Of Nctd on 28 July, 2016

20. The order of this Tribunal dated 27.01.2014 in Shri Bhawar Pal (supra) was, however, in the context of a claim for re- employment only, with which aspect the present OA is also concerned. In that case, a person, who already came within the ambit of the policy directions issued by the respondents had missed being so re-employed, and there was also delay in such re-employement. In that context, the Bench had on that day held in paras 11 to 14 of that Order as follows:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naveen Kumar Dabas vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 13 May, 2016

2. The applicants appeared in the recruitment conducted in the year 2002. However, in terms of certain litigation before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (Kanwar Pal & others v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & another decided on 31.05.2002), their appointments were delayed in comparison to their batch-mates, who were appointed immediately after the results were declared in the year 2002.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1