Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing S.Gunasekaran vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 14 June, 2011

Ravikumar vs The Management on 12 March, 2024

9. As regards the contention of the appellant that the benefit of no limitation prescribed by the State Law cannot be curtailed by the Central Law, the Writ Court has considered the decision of this Court relied upon by the appellant in S.Gunasekaran and others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu in W.P.Nos.1949 and 7558 of 2010 and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe reported in (1983) 1 SCC 177, referred to in S.Gunasekaran's case.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S. Raghunathan on 17 April, 2015

46.Applying the ratio laid down by the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2013 (6) CTC 593 (cited supra), this Court comes to an inescapable and inevitable conclusion that the impugned order in G.O.(Ms)No.187, Labour and Employment (E2) Department, dated 17.09.2010 insofar as it relates to the Respondent/Petitioner appointing him as Regular Watchman in the time scale of pay from the date of issuance of the order is a just, valid and proper one, in the eye of Law and the contrary view taken by the Writ Court, in allowing the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order in G.O.(Ms).No.187, Labour and Employment (E2) Department, dated 17.09.2010 of the 1st Appellant/1st Respondent insofar as it restricts the regularisation of the Respondent/Petitioner's services from the date of order, is not a tenable one, in the eye of Law. As such, this Court interferes with the said order dated 02.07.2012 in W.P.No.11640 of 2012 and sets aside the same. Consequently, the Writ Appeal succeeds.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - M Venugopal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next