Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Uma Shankar Sharma vs The Union Of India And Ors on 17 April, 1980

Original Application No. 58/2013 vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... on 9 July, 2013

14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the case law referred to by the learned counsel for the parties and the documents on record. From the perusal of the advertisement issued at Annexure A/3 of OA No. 58/2013 (Shankar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India & Others), it is clear that Field Investigators were to be appointed on contract basis for one year. Further offer of appointment dated 27.07.2009 (Annexure A/4) was also on contract basis. The applicants accepted this offer and worked as Field Investigator. Merely because they have undergone medical check up, filed declaration regarding their marital status, have taken oath of allegiance/faithfulness to the Constitution of India and they have submitted character certificate will not entitled them for regularization. In doing so, the applicants have only complied with the conditions of offer of appointment on contract basis dated 27.07.2009 (Annexure A/4).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Sreenivasa.J on 28 June, 2019

In this behalf, he relied upon the decision in the case of Uma Shankar Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1980) 3 SCC 202. He further submitted that, if the Expert Committee, which has selected the candidate, has found that he is qualified and adequately it was in compliance with the academic qualification prescribed, the same has to be confirmed holding that it is in accordance with Rules and it cannot be disturbed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pradip Kumar Ghosh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 February, 2002

He has also relied on a Calcutta Bench decision in the case of Uma Shankar Prasad v. UOI and Ors., 1992(2) ATJ 298=1992(2) SLJ 106 (SC). In that case the applicant was promoted on ad hoc basis and Vice-Principal of System Technical School and continued for over decades satisfactorily and thereafter he was discharged. In those circumstances, the Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to regularisation. The fact situation in the present case is distinguishable as the applicant herein has not been discharged, rather he has been given promotion in higher post in his own line.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India Officers' ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 August, 2003

19. Mr. Mukherjee also relies on a decision reported in 1981(1) CHN page 354. Mr. Mukherjee then relies on another decision of a Division Bench of this High Court reported in 1982(1) CHN page 100 (Uma Shankar Chatterjee v. Union of India and Ors.) Mr. Mukherjee submitted that in this decision the Hon'ble Division Bench observed in connection with an order of suspension that it becomes effective when it goes out of hand of the concerned authority for being communicated to the Government servant, no matter when he actually receives it. In the case of order of removal or dismissal it would be effective only when the Government servant has knowledge of it. The Government servant will have such knowledge when he is told about the order or in the absence of prior notice when he actually receives the order. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that where the petitioner No. 2 has knowledge or information that he is going to be deprived of his promotion is at Calcutta.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S. Chaoba Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 October, 2002

In the case of Uma Sankar v. Union of India, reported in 1982 (II) LLJ 378, the order of dismissal from service and also the order of dismissal of the appeal against the said order of dismissal were passed at New Delhi, the orders were served upon the employee at Calcutta. Thus, it was held that Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction over the case. In our present case also, the order of dismissal of tie appeal filed by the petitioner was received by the petitioner at Imphal.
Gauhati High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - H K Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next