Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing N. Subba Rao Etc vs Union Of India & Others on 23 August, 1972

Dr Tikam Das Khatri vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 13 October, 2025

We found that the ratio of the said Order dated 21.08.2018 was squarely applicable in the case of the Applicant in the present O.A. before us also - since he was working in a research role as 20 OA No.636/2017 R.O.(Medical) in N.V.B.D.C.P. and there was no claim that in course of the services of R.O.(Medical) in N.V.B.D.C.P., he was required to treat patients. Hence, we are inclined to rely on the ratio of the Order dated 21.08.2018 of the Hon'ble Principal Bench at New Delhi of this Tribunal in the O.A. No.335/2018 (supra) in deciding the present O.A.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.I.T. Jodhpur vs Achaldas Dhanraj And Anr. on 27 March, 1995

This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 1989. Unlike other payments referred to In Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, the deduction regarding employer's contribution It denied in a year Is not available as a deduction In any subsequent years also, On account of various reasons like postal delay, strikes or long holidays, the payment of employer's contributions to the respective authorities Is delayed even though the payment by a cheque or draft is tendered before the due date. To avoid any hardship being caused in such cases, it is proposed to provide that if any sum payable by an employer by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees, if made by a cheque, draft or any other made has been rendered by the due date, and the actual payment has been realised within fifteen days of the due date, deduction shall be allowed. This amendment will take effet from 1st April, 1989 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 1989-90 and subsequent years The A.P. High Court in the case of S.Subba Rao (supra) while upholding the validity of the provisions of Section 43B interpreted that Section 43B contemplates the liability to pay the tax or duty which should be incurred in the accounting year and the amount should also be statutorily payable in the accounting year and for that purpose the amendment which was effective from 1.4.1988 was taken into consideration from which the legislative intent was found to be clear. In these circumstances, it was held that the sales-tax payable for the month of March, 1984 could not be disallowed under Section 43B and market case is not in the nature of tax of duty. In order to see whether the proviso is explanatory clerifocatory or declaratory or statutory provision of law which could be interpreted as retrospective or not. Max-well on the Interpretation of statute has observed It is a fundamental rule of English law that no statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless a construction appers very clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by necessary distinct Implication.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parveen Goel vs Punjab Technical University And Ors. on 28 September, 2007

...Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel drew our attention to the decision of this court in N. Subba Rao v. Union of India , and urged that it is implicit in the said decision that there is an obligation on the Central Government to give a personal hearing to the officers concerned under the Act. We have gone through the decision carefully and we do not find any basis for this contention....
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

D.V.V. Satya Prasad And Ors. vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 16 November, 1995

16. The issues formulated by the Commission are very pertinent covering the range of controversy between the two classes of employees and in the context of consideration of these issues, the Commission examined the guidelines followed with regard to the equation of posts and integration of services in the wake of the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh on 1-11-1956 and expressed that the factors taken into consideration by the Commission were more or less in agreement with the principles evolved at the time of the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, "though the dimensions of the two problems are not quite comparable". The qualifications, powers and responsibilities, position in the hierarchical system and pay and allowances are undoubtedly crucial factors that must go into the estimate when posts are equated and norms are evolved for the purpose of consequential inter se seniority. In what respects these considerations are beyond the permissible range of the Commission, none of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners could substantiate. The problem was viewed by the Commission, in our considered opinion, from the correct perspective. In a large number of cases arising under the States Reorganisation Act concerning equation of posts and integration of services of the employees affected by the re-organisation of the States, the Supreme Court upheld the principles as just and fair. Subba Rao v. Union of India - ; State of A.P. v. Rameshwar Prasad - .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - S S Hussaini - Full Document

Mohammad Shujat, Ali & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 3 May, 1974

We may point out that the decision in Raghavendra Rao's case (supra) has been cited with approval by a Bench of five Judges of this Court as recently as 23rd August, 1972 in N. Subba Rao v. Union of India. (2) It must, therefore, be concluded that in any view of the, matter the Andhra Rules and the Andhra Pradesh Rules did not contravene the proviso to section 115, subsection (7). Re. C :
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 296 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

R.M. Ramual vs State Of Himachal Pradesh Ors on 2 December, 1988

907. In that case, a post was upgraded with retrospective effect and it was held that the State Government of Himachal Pradesh could not upgrade the post with retrospective effect without the sanction of the Central Government under section 82(6) of the Act. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the question of upgradation of posts, but with proforma promotion given to the appellant with retrospective effect, from November 1, 1966. The said decision, in our opinion, has no application to the facts of the instant case. Next Mr. Ghosh has placed reliance upon another decision of this Court in N. Subba Rao v. Union of India, [1973] I SCR 945. That is a case under the .States Reorganisation Act,1955. It has been held that if there is any question of change of conditions of service, it will have to be found out whether in the first place it amounts to change in the conditions of service and, if so, secondly to find out whether there was prior approval of the Central Government. One of the contentions that was advanced before this Court in the said case was that the retrospective regularisation and relaxation of rules by the State of Andhra Pradesh subsequent to the appointed would amount to change in conditions of service and conferment of new advantages on Andhra Pradesh Officers to the detriment of the Telengana Officer. In the instant case, however, the question of regularisation and relaxation of rules do not arise. What has been done in the present case is that a glaring injustice was done to the appellant by taking into account his substantive rank as the reception Officer on November 1 1966 while, as a matter of tact, on that date he was holding the position of District Public Relations Officer. that was done in violation of the directions of the Central Government, and subsequently the Government rectified the mistake the by granting proforma promotion to the appellant with effect from June 4, 1966 to the post of Assistant Manager equivalent to the post of District Public Relations Officer. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Ghosh that as the previous approval of the Central Government was not ,taken as required to be taken under the provision to section 82(6) of the Act, the Government order as contained in the Memorandum dated August 7, 1983 read with that contained in the Memorandum dated March 3, 1974, granting proforma PG NO 1021 promotion to the appellant as Assistant Manager in the scale of Rs.225-500 with retrospective effect from June 4, 1966 was illegal. In order to consider this contention, we may refer to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (6) of section 82 of the Act which provide as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 17 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Laksheswar Talukdar vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 2 January, 2017

15.8. This Court has further considered the fact that the power to relax rules under Rule 29 appears to be permitted if the Government is satisfied that Page 16 of 21 operation of any these rules may cause undue hardship in any particular case, which is evident from plain and clear language used in the said Rule 29 of the 1982 Rules. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument of Dr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was qualified to be appointed in the year 1989. She would be still qualified for appointment as a Lecturer in law after the new 1991 Regulation had come into effect, prescribing that a candidate must have 55% marks in LL.M. for being appointed as a teacher in Law College in Assam. This Court is of the view that as per the provisions of Rule 8 read with Rule 5(1), read with Clause-6 of Schedule-II appended to the 1982 Rules, this Court is of the view that educational qualifications are to be construed from the relevant date when such qualifications have been prescribed. The petitioner, being a part-time Lecturer in law in B.R.M. Government Law College, Guwahati, did not have any vested right to be absorbed as a Full/Whole time Lecturer, because as per Rule 5 of the 1982 Rules, the appointments are to be made only by direct recruitment and recourse to the APSC (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1991 was not available for filling up the post of Lecturers, as would be evident from the reading the provisions of Rule 5 of the said 1982 Rules. Therefore, the case laws cited by Dr. Ahmed, including the one reported in 1976 (4) SCC 226 (supra) are not applicable under the singular facts and circumstances of this case because, as stated above, the Govt. had apparently already relaxed the Rules as regards minimum educational qualification in the advertisement dated 12th May, 2009 and a Degree of M. Phil or a recognized Degree beyond Master's level or published works were not insisted therein.
Gauhati High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

R.K. Bhatnagar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Divisional ... on 30 July, 1982

15. In reply to the third contention, it was argued that in exactly identical circumstances one Shri R.N. Sharma was transferred from Western Railway to Northern Railway. Shri R.N. Sharma was also an office bearer of the Association and this Court in Civil Writ No. 980/81 R.N. Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 31st March, 1982, has held that such a transfer is perfectly valid. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the contention of the petitioner regarding arbitrary action and victimisation, therefore, stands concluded by the aforesaid decision of this Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ajay Shankar And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 12 July, 2001

3. There is no dispute that these Circus Companies have a certificate of ownership with respect to animals falling in these five categories. These certificates were obtained essentially for the purposes of the Circus Companies. The entire tenor of the petition discloses that. Subsequently it has so happened that the authorities concerned moved under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and issued the necessary notification under section 22 of the Act, and have banned the training and exhibiting of animals. This notification issued on 14th October, 1998 under section 22 of that Act led to a Writ Petition to the Kerala High Court and the judgment of the Kerala High Court upholding the said notification is reported in the case of N. R. Nalr v. Union of India. The judgment of the Division Bench of that High Court upheld that notification. The matter was carried to the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

C.C.E., Bhopal vs M/S. General Manager, Vehicle Factory, ... on 22 March, 2001

In terms of the Apex Court direction in O.N.G.C. vs. Union of India - 1992 (61) ELT 3 (S.C), the appellants have to obtain clearance from the Committee of Secretaries for prosecuting the appeal. The matter is being adjourned time and again since over one year to enable the Department to obtain the stated clearance, but the same is not forthcoming. Shri S.C. Pushkarna, JDR reports today that no such clearance has been obtained. The appeal is therefore, dismissed subject to restoration of the same on receipt and filing of the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries in terms of the above stated direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next