Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 426 (1.92 seconds)
Documents citing Manager Govt. Branch Press &. Anr vs D. B. Belliawpa on 30 November, 1978

State Of Punjab vs Shri Amar Singh, General Secretary, ... on 27 January, 1998

20. We have carefully perused the judgment in Krishan Chand Goyal's case (supra) and are of the opinion that the observations made by the Division Bench with regard to the ratio of the judgment in D.B. Belliappa's case (supra) is based on incomplete reading of the decision. In para 25 of the Supreme Court's judgment, the argument that the termination of service of a temporary employee in accordance with the conditions of appointment cannot be quashed on the ground of violation of Article 16, has been unequivocally rejected.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - K S Kumaran - Full Document

Muttanna Shankar Chavan And Ors. vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Police ... on 22 February, 2005

(iii) The second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law and to decide the same, after affording an opportunity, to the petitioners after taking into consideration the observations made by this Court in the course of its Order, bearing in mind the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of Orissa High Court referred above, as expeditiously as possible within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N K Patil - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra And Ors. vs V.G. Koppar on 21 March, 1980

As held earlier, the plaintiffs services were terminated simpliciter without assigning any reason. But in the record there seems to be a motive of unsatisfactory performance of plaintiff's duties by him. If this was so, it could hardly be said that the plaintiff was discriminated by the defendants or arbitrarily picked up for termination of his services. The observations quoted in D. B. Bellappa's case (1979 Lab IC 146) (SC) (supra), would clearly indicate that unsatisfactory performance by a temporary Government servant puts him in a class apart from his juniors in the same service and his services can be terminated without assigning any reasons. The relevant observations are as follows :--
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

D.K.Rangra vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2014

52. Even otherwise, nowhere in his pleadings, nor in the oral arguments submitted, the applicant has been able to prove that the post of Director of Regional Centres of NIFT was in the channel or avenues of promotion available to him, after he was confirmed in the post of Registrar at NIFT, Principal Campus at New Delhi, which has since been re-designated as Joint Director, in view of the 2006 re-designation of posts under the Act of 2006. Therefore, the benefit of the judgments in the cases Manager, Government Branch Press and Anr. vs. D.B.Belliappa (supra) and Ram Ujarey v. Union of India (supra) cannot be made available to the applicant. Since his was a 5 year time bound Contract appointment, he cannot also derive any benefit from the numerous cases cited by him, by calling it a short-term contract employment.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next