Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Autar Pandey vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. on 21 December, 1961

Chaturvedi (R.P.) And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 22 January, 1968

The Allahabad High Court has taken contrary view in Ram Autar Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 1962-1 L.L.J. 148 and Vidya Sagar v. Board of Revenue and the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court in the Full Bench decision in Ram Autar Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 1962-1 L.L.J. 148 (vide supra) have observed at p. 158; that ".... The rule-making power conferred by Article 309 on the Governor or his nominee is, therefore, not confined to prospective rule-making and appears to be wide enough to include the making of rules with retrospective effect . . . The legislature, it is well-settled, can legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively. The powers of the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 being identical with that of the legislation under the main article, the Governor can make rules with similar effect."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Hazari Lal Srivastava vs Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 21 November, 1963

12. Further there is a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Autar Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 All 328, where also it was held that under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act the Governor was competent to amend the rules regulating conditions of service from time to time. In these circumstances the main contention raised by the petitioner that the Rules of 1955 did not apply to him has to be rejected and he cannot claim that he is entitled to continue indefinitely in service under the Rules of 1949.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - V Bhargava - Full Document

I.T.I. Ltd., Naini Officers ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 August, 2002

The challenge to the same was repelled by a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Autar Pandey v. State of U. P. and Ors., AIR 1962 All 328. In appeal the Apex Court held that there is no provision which takes away the power of Government to increase or reduce the age of superannuation. It was further held that the alteration in the circumstances of the case could not be regarded as unreasonable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Madan Mohan Prasad And Ors. vs Government Of Bihar And Ors. on 26 September, 1969

16. Mr. Basudeva Prasad also contended that even though the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution could be amended retrospectively, as held by the Supreme Court in B.S. Vadera's case, AIR 1969 SC 118 approving the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Autar Pandey v. State of U. P., AIR 1962 All 328, the Government has no power to make changes in the service conditions of their personnel with retrospective effect by mere executive instructions, as held by the Punjab High Court in Suresh Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1969 Punj and Har 257.
Patna High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Suresh Kumar And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 March, 1968

19. So far as legislative enactments are concerned, it is well recognised that in the absence of any constitutional inhibition, a competent Legislature may give retrospective operation to any provision of law enacted by it either expressly or by necessary intendment. Whether this general principle of interpretation of statutes from the point of view of their retrospectivity applies to rules made under the purview of Article 309 of the Constitution or under any other enabling provision or not, need not detin us in this judgment, as that question does not arise in this case. Nor are we directly concerned with the rules framed by the President of India or the Governor of a State under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. It may, however, be mentioned that two Full Benches of the Kerala High Court have held, relying on the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Autar Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 All 328 (FB), that the rule-making power conferred by Art. 309 on the Governor of a State or his nominee is not confined to prospective rule-making only and appears to be wide enough to include the making of rules with retrospective effect, C. K. Madhvan Nair v. registrar, High court of Kerala, 1967 SLR 298 = (AIR 1968 Ker 17 FB) and V. hari Haran Pillai v. State of Kerala, 1967 SLR 553 = (AIR 1968 Ker 42 FB).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next