Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 67 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Kartar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana Through Inspector ... on 26 August, 1982

Neeraj Bishnoi vs Pr Director Of Audit North Western ... on 27 February, 2026

17. It must be noted here that following the aforementioned decision in State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann (supra), a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana (1998) 119 PLR 448, in reference to the interpretation of Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, which is in pari materia with Rule 26 (4) of the of the CCS (Pension) Rules observed as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Appellants vs Birendra Dutt Badola And Others on 17 October, 2019

27. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, referred to Kartar Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & Haryana4, to hold that absorption was required to be done so that the persons, who were working in ad hoc posts or in ex-cadre posts, could be absorbed in the parent department, but such absorption could only be done in an equivalent post; the respondent had admitted that the equivalent post was that of 13 a Deputy Ranger; if Absorption Rules were required to be made, then the State Government should absorb these Assistant Development Officers in the post of Deputy Rangers; and by no stretch of imagination could absorption be made in a higher post, which had a different recruitment procedure, and which was in a higher pay-scale. After quashing the 2011 Rules, the learned Single Judge noted the submission, urged on behalf of the State Government, that there were only 10 Assistant Development Officers working in the original 76 ex-cadre posts, and their demand for being absorbed in the parent cadre was pending with the State Government for a long period of time, because of which the 2011 Rules were made. After taking note of the fact that the posts of Assistant Development Officer had been abolished in the year 2006, the learned Single Judge held that these Assistant Development Officers could not be left in the lurch, and were required to be adjusted in the parent department. The Assistant Development Officers were directed to be adjusted in the posts of Deputy Rangers, the period spent by them in the post of Forest Guard or Forester, and the period spent in the post of Assistant Development Officer, was directed to be reckoned while fixing their seniority in the post of Deputy Rangers; and a seniority list was directed to be prepared accordingly.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - A K Verma - Full Document

Ghayur Ahmad Jamali vs State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2022

27. Whereas in the impugned Judgment of conviction/sentence rendered by the trial court in almost all 13 counts of an offence and whereby held sentence against the accused which is reflected in the operative portion of the order but all the substantial sentences shall run concurrently but section 428 of Cr.P.C were also to be stated in the operative portion of the order relating to set off. But Section 428 of Cr.P.C relating to set off, it means to say the period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against sentence of imprisonment. The word `imprisonment' and also the word `punishment' it should be taken into consideration not in a common parlance it should be in accordance with in a given facts and circumstances of the case, but benefit of set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C is not available to life convicts. It is a Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case 32 of Kartar Singh and others Vs State of Haryana reported in AIR 1982 SC 1433. In a recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court relating to life imprisonment thereby means life is a life and a natural life till her breath or till his breath. Therefore, it is difficult to define what is life and what is natural life. Therefore Section 428 of Cr.P.C which has been used by the trial Judge for set off, but the offences under Section 121 of IPC read with Section 120B and 121A of IPC and Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 held conviction by the trial court that the appellants were arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4, both shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the aforesaid provision which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order. Therefore, the question of set off as under Section 428 of Cr.P.C cannot arise by exercising the power even though the power is vested with the trial court in the aforesaid provision in Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 428 Cr.P.C., reads thus:
Karnataka High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 29 July, 2022

32. The three questions as regards the manner of running of sentences having been answered above, this Court reverts back to the main issue as to whether the under-trial detention period is to be set-off against both the sentences of imprisonment separately irrespective of the fact that the sentences are to run consecutively. It is Section 428 Cr.P.C. which provides for set-off of under- trial detention period wherein it is specifically provided that the period of detention during the course of inquiry or trial is required to be set-off against the 'term of imprisonment' imposed on the convict. Although Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kartar Singh and others versus State of Haryana, 1982(3) SCC 1, had held that benefit of set-off is not available to life convicts while referring to the word term as existing in Section 428 Cr.P.C, but subsequently the said judgement was over-ruled by a Constitution Bench of 18 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 03-08-2022 01:34:34 ::: ( 19 ) CRWP-1779-2019 (O&M) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagirath versus Delhi Administration, 1985(2) RCR (Criminal) 85, wherein it was held as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - G S Gill - Full Document

Vadilal Pochabhai Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 21 September, 1987

In the case of Kartar Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana , the Supreme Court held that the benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code was not available to persons who are sentenced to imprisonment for life, because the benefit of Section 428 is available only to persons who are sentenced to imprisonment for a term and the imprisonment for life was not a sentence for a term.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next