Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Bhanwar Lal Verma vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 8 November, 1996

Chain Singh vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ... on 6 March, 1998

22. As a result of above discussion, I am of the view that the petitioners deserve to succeed and the impugned orders of retrenchment dated 12.4.1989 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5120/1989 (Chain Singh v. R.S.R.T.C), dated 12.4.1989 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2848/1989 (Bhanwer Lal v. R.S.R.T.C.), dated 12.4.1989 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No, 1981/1989 (Desh Raj Singh v. R.S.R.T.C), dated 12.4.1987 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3476/1989 (Munshi Lal v. R.S.R.T.C), dated 12.4.1989 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4193/1989 (Dayanand Yadav v. R.S.R.T.C), dated 7.9.1987 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3452/89 (Durga Shankar Sharma v. R.S.R.T.C & another), dated 9.3.1989 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3250/89 (Prakash Chandra Choudhry v. R.S.R.T.C), dated 15.4.1989 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3406/89 (Naresh Kumar Mudgal v. R.S.R.T.C. & another) & dated 7.4.1989 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3533/89 (Brij Mohan v. R.S.R.T.C. Jaipur) are all quashed and set aside. Consequently, the aforesaid writ petitions are allowed with the direction to the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioners by issuing suitable orders in this regard within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondent Corporation is further directed to fix the petitioners in suitable pay scales treating them as regular employees of the corporation as per their entitlement in accordance with the Rules and shall further be entitled to all consequential benefits.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.V. Remani vs C.J. Sunny on 16 April, 2007

6. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to prove her income. She did not even go to the box. Even then, we are of opinion that in 1999, a lady engaged in the work of peeling prawns would have been able to earn at least ` 2,000/- per month as income. Accordingly, we re-fix the notional monthly income of the appellant as ` 2,000/- instead of ` 1,500/- fixed by the Tribunal. Consequently, for thirteen months, she would be entitled to additional compensation of ` 6,500/- under the head, 'loss of earnings'. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurance company, the multiplier for a 44 year old person is 14 as per the decision in Sarla Verma's case (supra).
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Jagan - Full Document
1