Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 121 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Rajendra Giriraj Prasad Tiwari (S. B. C. ... vs Union Of India And Others. on 18 April, 1994

Rajendra Prasad Pandey vs Union Of India on 22 January, 2015

2. Facts in brief goes to show that the petitioner was initially appointed as Inspector in the Central Excise and Customs Department in the pay scale of Rs.425-800/- w.e.f. 9.11.1984. It is the case that in his entire service career till raising of the present grievance, no adverse 2 W.P.No.15393/2006 Rajendra Prasad Pandey Vs. Union of India & others confidential report was communicated to him, nor any departmental enquiry was held against him. On the contrary in pursuance to the recommendation of the 5 th Pay Commission an accelerated scheme for promotion known as Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme was introduced and the benefit of this ACP scheme was granted to the petitioner by granting him upgradation to the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. However it is said that after considering his case for upgradation in the year 1999 when a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held for regular promotion to the next higher post of Superintendent and when the order for promotion was passed by the Department on 23.7.2002 promoting various persons to the post of Superintendent, petitioner was not promoted and contending that his juniors have been promoted and petitioner's case has been ignored, representation was filed and when the representation was rejected, the application before the Tribunal and the same having been rejected, this writ petition has been filed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Satish Sharma And Ors. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 19 November, 1999

14. We have gone through the two orders passed by the Rajasthan High Court and the interim order passed by a Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the parties. The order dated 13.5.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in C.W.P. No. 1430 of 1998-Dr Sanju Singh v. Union of India and Ors. supports the claims of the petitioners.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - M S Gill - Full Document

M/S B.P.S. Builders Thr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2017

(5) In case, the authorities are not satisfied with the 3 WP No. 2354/2017 (M/s B.P.S. Builders Vs State of MP & Others) contention of petitioner or on verification, facts are not found correct then they shall pass a reasoned order in rejecting the contention of petitioner. (6) If the petitioner fails to produce the bills/affidavit as indicated hereinabove, the petitioner may represent his case to the concerned authority showing his inability to produce the bills or affidavit and it shall be for the State Government or authority to consider the representation and pass a suitable order in that regard within two months from the date of receipt of the representation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S B.P.S. Builders Thr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2017

(5) In case, the authorities are not satisfied with the 3 WP No. 2352/2017 (M/s B.P.S. Builders Vs State of MP & Others) contention of petitioner or on verification, facts are not found correct then they shall pass a reasoned order in rejecting the contention of petitioner. (6) If the petitioner fails to produce the bills/affidavit as indicated hereinabove, the petitioner may represent his case to the concerned authority showing his inability to produce the bills or affidavit and it shall be for the State Government or authority to consider the representation and pass a suitable order in that regard within two months from the date of receipt of the representation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S B.P.S. Builders S2A Thr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 April, 2017

(5) In case, the authorities are not satisfied with the 3 WP No. 2383/2017 (M/s B.P.S. Builders Vs State of MP & Others) contention of petitioner or on verification, facts are not found correct then they shall pass a reasoned order in rejecting the contention of petitioner. (6) If the petitioner fails to produce the bills/affidavit as indicated hereinabove, the petitioner may represent his case to the concerned authority showing his inability to produce the bills or affidavit and it shall be for the State Government or authority to consider the representation and pass a suitable order in that regard within two months from the date of receipt of the representation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next