Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Bhoop Alleged Son Of Sheo vs Matadin Bhardwaj Son Of Lakmi Chand on 4 December, 1990

Yogesh Kumar Tripathi vs Union Of India on 22 February, 2022

(a) Bhoop vs Matadin Bhardwaj, 1991 2 SCC 128 in which the Hon Apex Court has held that a party cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his own, (b) Rekha Mukherjee vs Ashsih Kumar Das, 2005 2 SCC 427, wherein the Hon Apex Court has held that a party cannot take advantage of its own mistake, (c) State of Orissa vs Dhani Ram 2004 (5) SCC 568 wherein any order passed without reason is non-est, and in light of these citations, the records of the CAC meeting be summoned so that correctness of the impugned order be Page 2 of 22 CAT LUCKNOW BENCH O.A. NO.568 OF 2016/ Yogesh Kumar Tripathi Vs. U.O.I. unveiled. Further that the Departmental Screening Committee has neither taken into account the DOPT O.M regarding compassionate appointment nor the penurious status of the applicant's family inasmuch that (i) the family comprising of an unmarried daughter whose very marriage could not be solemnised due to financial difficulties, (ii)that there is no house left by the father of the applicant nor any agricultural land, (iii) that there is no earning member in the family and mere grant of pension and retiral benefits cannot be a reason to assert that the family is not indigent and that this view has been held for by the Hon Apex Court also. Therefore,on account of above reasons, the impugned order is worthy of being set aside and directions given to the respondents to appoint the applicant forthwith.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deepa S Nair vs The Secretary And Director General Of ... on 10 May, 2023

8. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent has not compiled the Circle Gradation List of the Postal Assistants for the relevant period and circulated the relative seniority position of the applicants vis-à-vis their batch mates. In such circumstances, it is submitted that they should not be subjected to prejudice for culpable omission and inaction of the concerned authorities for not ordering notional appointment by stepping up their pay with reference to their juniors ranked lower in the said selection process. This exercise should have been done at least at the time of implementation of the final order of the Tribunal at Annexure A7. Thus the respondents should be directed to step up the pay of the applicants with reference to the pay of their batch mates who had joined induction training in May 1996 for the purpose of drawing their correct pay, increments, pension and other retiral benefits. The applicants submit that in Bhoop v. Matadin Bhardwaj (1991) 2 SCC 128 and in Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of India 1991 Supp (2) SCC 363, the Apex Court had taken the stand that the mistake or delay on the part of the Department should not be permitted to recoil on the party. It is submitted that the applicants are made to suffer solely on account of the lethargy of the respondents in implementing the A7 common order of this Tribunal in OA Nos.554/1996, 560/1996 and OA No.180/00264/2018 -17- 571/1996, brought out earlier.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.A.Ebrahim Kunju vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 31 October, 2008

In so far as the applicant is concerned, there has been no delay in his application. It is the case of the respondents that the said request forwarded by the Mangalore Office reached the authorities only after 12-072004. The applicant cannot be faulted with in this regard. (See Bhoop v. Matadin Bhardwaj, (1991) 2 SCC 128,) Again, the respondents cannot take advantage of their own mistake (see Rekha Mukherjee v. Ashis Kumar Das,(2005) 3 SCC 427) at the cost of the vested right of the applicant.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Federation Of India Mineral Industries vs State Of Odisha And Others on 23 February, 2015

16. In the written note of submission it is stated that though some of the judgments in this regard relied upon at the time of hearing have been noticed at paragraph-7 of the judgment, the law laid down therein has not been considered. The same is not correct. The decisions cited by the petitioner have been noted in paragraph-7 of the judgment. The paragraph-11 starts with "After due consideration, we are of the view......". That means all the points urged by the petitioner and the decisions cited by the petitioner were taken into consideration while rendering the judgment. Further the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Alleged son of Sheo v. Matadin Bhardwaj (dead) by LRs (1991) 2 SCC 128 that preemption right cannot be transferred to a third party has been considered at length in paragraphs 14 to 18 of the judgment by holding that no decision has been brought to our notice to the effect that after the preemption right is crystallized, benefit or interest thereunder cannot be transferred. In any case, the content of right under Rule 27(1)(m) is sui generic.
Orissa High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - A K Rath - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next