Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Ghanshyam And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 7 October, 1982

Ghanshyam And Others vs Northern Railway on 11 December, 2024

5. We have heard both the parties. During the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to order dated 12.08.2024 passed by us in OA No. 86 of 2023 in which we have taken note of striking down of paragraphs 3 (f), (g) and (h) of RBE No. 133/2019 by this Tribunal's Bangalore Bench in OA No. 213 and 215 of 2022 vide their judgment and order dated 19.03.2024. Briefly stated, by the said judgment and order dated 19.03.2024, the treatment of Loco Pilot (Goods), Loco Pilot (Passenger) and Loco Pilot (Mail/Express), carrying the same scale of pay/pay band and grade pay,as constituting different Page 3 of 4 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00063 of 2022 Ghanshyam and Ors. Vs. U.O.I.& Ors. cadres for the purpose of stepping up of pay was held to be arbitrary. In deciding O.A. No. 86 of 2023 vide order dated 12.08.2024, we saw no reason to differ with the finding of the Coordinate Bench of Bangalore. Learned counsel for the respondents conceded the aforementioned factual scenario.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Harsh Pratap Seonie vs Sh Narendra Kumar Jain on 27 May, 2019

In support of said arguments, he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi i.e. Ghanshyam and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1982) ILR 2 Delhi 807 wherein a writ petition was held to be maintainable as the lease deed executed by President of India was held to be not a contractual document but a statutory lease as same was in statutory form by virtue of appendix 11 to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules 1955. I have considered said submission also. Firstly, aforesaid case was a writ petition and the question was limited to maintainability of a writ. Hence, said judgment has to be read in that context only. Secondly, the respondent has neither pleaded nor proved that the lease deed in favour of Shiv Pratap Seonie was also in any statutory form as in the aforesaid case. Thirdly, breach of a condition of lease i.e. creation of third party interest without seeking permission of super lessor is only a forfeiture clause and gives a right to super lessor to terminate the lease but the Evi. Ptn No. 6289/16 Harsh Pratap Seonie & Ors Vs Narendra Kumar Jain Page 14/27 transfer itself cannot be said to be ipso facto void as it is discretion of super lessor to act upon such breach or waive off the same. Rather, forfeiture of lease has to be done by giving notice in writing mentioning the particular breach and if breach is capable of remedy, require the lessee to remedy the breach. However, there is neither any averment nor any evidence to show that super lessor has acted on alleged breach or not. Accordingly, there is no substance in the aforesaid arguments of Counsel for respondent. Hence, the first ingredient of section 14(1)(e) DRC Act stands proved in the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1