Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 414 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 March, 1989

P.K. Maidamwar vs Shri Malay Shrivastava Principal ... on 17 March, 2026

8. Perusal of both the judgments in the case of K. Samba Moorthy (supra) & Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, shows that in both the decisions ratio of previous decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 166; (3 judge Bench); A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, (2003) 7 SCC 238 (3 judge Bench); and Union of India vs. B.M. Jha (2007) 11 SCC 632 has not been taken into consideration, therefore, I am bound to follow the decision given by this Court in the case of Atul Bajapei (supra) which is based on the decisions in the cases of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 166; State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1996 SC 2936; Union of India vs. B.M. Jha, (2007) 11 SCC 632; and K. Ananda Rao and others vs. S.S. Rawat, IAS and others, (2019) 13 SCC 24.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - D D Bansal - Full Document

S.Ramalingam vs The Chairman And Managing Director on 31 August, 2009

3. Thereafter the appellant filed Writ Petition No.14371 of 1999 challenging the order dated 21.12.1998 promoting the appellant with retrospective effect from 8.11.1994 without giving monetary benefit and the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge after narrating the facts of filing of earlier writ petition and subsequent filing of the contempt application and taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PALURU RAMAKRISHNAIAH VS. UNION OF INDIA (1989 2 SCC 541) by holding that the appellant herein is not entitled to the benefit sought for in the writ petition in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of PALURU RAMAKRISHNAIAH VS. UNION OF INDIA and unless the seniority list is prepared and finalised and promotions are made in accordance with the rules on the basis of the seniority list, the question of entitlement to work in the promotional posts does not arise. The correctness of the same is now canvassed before us in this writ appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Inter University Accelerator Centre vs Manisha Rani & Ors on 3 August, 2023

1985] and the judgments of the Tribunal following the said decision lay down good law and constitute good precedents to be allowed in similar cases. We reject the contentions of the interveners to the contrary and further hold that having urged before the Supreme Court their various contentions and their SLP having been dismissed by the Supreme Court, they cannot reagitate the matter before us. We, therefore, dismiss MP Nos. 3396, 3397, 3493 and 3494 of 1991 in OA No. 2407 of 1988 as being devoid of any merit.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Atul Bajapei vs Mr. V. N. Ambade on 27 February, 2026

Further, in all these decisions, previous decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Paluru Ramkrishnaiah and others (supra) (3 judge Bench); State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta (supra); A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-02-2026 14:20:07 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP: 17552 CONC-4869-2024 10 (supra) (3 judge Bench); and Union of India v. B.M. Jha (supra) have not been taken into consideration, so the decisions relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner, do not provide any assistance to the questions involved in the instant contempt petition.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - D D Bansal - Full Document

Shri Krishan Chander vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 5 March, 2010

In support thereof, the learned counsel invited our attention to the decisions of this Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1989) 2 SCC 541], Virender Kumar, G.M., Northern Railways Vs. Avinash Chandra Chadha & Ors.[ (1990) 3 SCC 472] , State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. O.P. Gupta & Ors. [ (1996) 7 SCC 533], A.K. Soumini Vs. State Bank of Travancore & Anr.[ (2003) 7 SCC 238] and Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tarsem Lal & Ors. [ (2006) 10 SCC 145].
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prem Kumar Chauhan vs Punjab State Electricity Board And Ors. on 17 December, 2007

6. This Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India , considered the direction issued by the High Court and upheld that there has to be "no pay for no work", i.e., a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of higher post, although after due consideration, he was given a proper place in the gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. He will be entitled only to step up the scale of pay retrospectively from the deemed date but is not entitled to the payment of arrears of the salary.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next