Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 170 (4.50 seconds)
Documents citing Birla Vidya Niketan N.K. Bagrodia ... vs Directorate Of Education Directorate ... on 12 March, 2020

Sh. Bhagat Ram vs Union Of India on 20 January, 2023

21. On behalf of respondent no.1/ UOI, Sh. S.K. Puri, ld. counsel relied upon the copy of award No. 1/DC(W) of 2012-13 pertaining to Village Mundka and also tendered in evidence, certified copy of the Sale deed dated 01.02.2012 executed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Tek Ram in favour of Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Mal in respect of the village Mundka and proved as Ex. R-1, certified copy of the Sale deed dated 07.02.2012 executed by Dharamvir in favour of Sh. Arjun Kumar Jangid in respect of the village Mundka and proved as Ex. R-2, certified copy of the Sale deed dated 06.02.2012 executed by Neeraj in favour of Sh. Raj Kumar in respect of the village Mundka as Ex. R-3, certified copy of the Sale deed dated 03.02.2012 executed by Sh. Ramesh Chander & Others in favour of Sh. Sunil Jain & Anr. in respect of the village Mundka as Ex. R-4 and certified copy of the Sale deed dated 03.02.2012 executed by Sh. Ramesh Chander & Anr. in favour of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jindal & Anr. in respect of the village Mundka as Ex. R-5 LAC No. 64/13 (New No.16/16) Bhagat Ram vs. UOI & Anr. 9/15
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madan Lal Batra vs Cabinet Secretariat on 13 April, 2021

6. We have heard the counsels for the parties. We have perused the pleadings on record. It is not in dispute that the applicants are similarly placed as the applicants therein the aforesaid two OAs, namely, OA No.1622/2014, titled as 8 OA No. 900/2020 V. K. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and OA No. 3290/2012, titled as G.S. Bhatti and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid Orders/Judgments of this Tribunal in the aforesaid two OAs have attained finality and the same have been given effect to. The only reason as given by the respondents to refuse the benefits of the aforesaid two Orders/Judgments is that the DoP&T has advised that the benefits can be given to the applicants in the aforesaid two OAs only and not to similarly placed persons. Once it is an admitted case that the applicants are similarly placed and the benefits pertain to the grievance of financial benefits under the MACP Scheme and refusal therefore is causing loss to the applicants on month to month basis. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the applicants have been fence sitters and, therefore, they are not entitled to the reliefs, as sought in the present OA, is not found sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that it is settled law that once an issue has been decided by the competent Court of law, the benefits thereof are required to be extended to all the similarly placed persons and the Government being a model employer is not 9 OA No. 900/2020 expected to compel each and every other similarly placed employees to approach the Tribunal/Court.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Inderraj & Anr vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 25 August, 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 8 CRL.M.C. 1971/2021 INDERRAJ & ANR. Vs. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 25.08.2021 CW-4 Mr. Sukh Ram, s/o Mr. Ugara Ram, age 31 years, r/o Mangiliya Was, Nagaur, Rajasthan-341511 On S.A. The mediation settlement dated 22.01.2021 arrived at at the Mediation Centre, Saket Courts bears my signatures thereon, which I have signed voluntarily of my own accord without any duress, pressure or coercion from any quarter.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document

J C Kapoor vs Cabinet Secretariat on 13 January, 2023

"6. We have heard the counsels for the parties. We have perused the pleadings on record. It is not in dispute that the applicants are similarly placed as the applicants therein the aforesaid two OAs, namely, OA No.1622/2014, titled as V. K. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and OA No. 3290/2012, titled as G.S. Bhatti and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid Orders/Judgments of this Tribunal in the aforesaid two OAs have attained finality and the same have been given effect to. The only reason as given by the respondents to refuse the benefits of the aforesaid two Orders/Judgments is that the DoP&T has advised that the benefits can be given to the applicants in the aforesaid two OAs only and not to similarly placed persons. Once it 9 O.A. No. 554/2020 Item No. 15 (C-5) is an admitted case that the applicants are similarly placed and the benefits pertain to the grievance of financial benefits under the MACP Scheme and refusal therefore is causing loss to the applicants on month to month basis. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the applicants have been fence sitters and, therefore, they are not entitled to the reliefs, as sought in the present OA, is not found sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that it is settled law that once an issue has been decided by the competent Court of law, the benefits thereof are required to be extended to all the similarly placed persons and the Government being a model employer is not expected to compel each and every other similarly placed employees to approach the Tribunal/Court.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next