Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing M. Gopalakrishnaiah vs Union Of India on 10 May, 1994

Manav Hitkari Sangh vs Rajkumar Singh on 14 July, 2000

In M. Gopalakrishnaiah v. Union of India (supra), M. Gopalakrishnaiah, who was Executive Director (wholetime Working Director) of the Bank of Maharashtra by way of writ petition challenged his removal from service under an order dated 9.7.1993 issued by the Central Government in the exercise of powers conferred by Sub-clause (1A) of Clause 8 of the Nationalished Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970. The petitioner's case was lhat his removal was in violation of Sub- clause (4) of Clause 8 of the scheme and was not termination simpliciter and in any case sub clause (1A) was void being unconstitulional. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held lhat Clause 8(1 A) of the aforesaid scheme providing for removal of whole lime Director before expiry of his term by giving notice and pay was invalid and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution so also Section 23 of the Contract Act being against public policy.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurmeet Singh Randhawa vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 2015

(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1970, the Government employee was also entitled for promotion if the post was available and thus, it was a vested right. Clause 7 of the instructions dated 22.01.2013 provided that even if there were Court cases, Vigilance enquiries, enquiries pending, the extension was to be given if the option had been exercised by the employee. The withdrawal vide instructions dated 30.10.2014 and the setting up of the Committee to look into the extensions against officers who had Vigilance/Criminal/Departmental enquiries and the subsequent instructions dated 07.01.2015, which clarified that the departmental enquiry should be under Rule 8 for major punishment and not on account of minor punishment and further reconsideration by the Committees was beyond the purview of Rule 3.26 and could not override the same. Similarly, the instructions dated 30.04.2015, wherein it was SAILESH RANJAN CWP No.13333 of 2015 & other connected cases -5- 2015.09.16 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document provided that extension could be withdrawn without issuing any notice was also challenged on the ground that once there was statutory right given, the said action could not be done without giving an opportunity of hearing and would amount to supplanting the rule itself. Reliance was, accordingly, placed upon M.Gopalakrishnaiah Vs. Union of India & another 1994 (8) SLR 229, State of Haryana Vs. Raghubir Dayal 1995 (1) SCC 133, Director General of Posts & others VS. B.Ravindran & another (1997) 1 SCC 641, Ramesh Chandra Acharya Vs. Registrar, High Court of Orissa (2000) 6 SCC 332, Union of India & another Vs. Shardindu (2007) 6 SCC 276 and the Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ex Sub Rajender Singh Vs. Union of India & others 2015 (2) SCT 728.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Dr. Abhay Kumar Srivastava vs Union Of India And Anr on 20 November, 2023

Similar is the position in the cases of West Bengal State Electricity Board (supra), M. Gopalakrishnaiah (supra), Central Inland Water Transport Corporation (supra), O.P. Bhandari (supra), N.K. Aggarwal (supra) and Uptron India (supra). In the present case, the appointment was for a period of five years i.e., on a tenure basis. It is not a permanent appointment in the sense that the employee continues in service till the age of his superannuation resulting in grant of pension to him.
Delhi High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document
1