Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Bhim Singh And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 24 July, 1979

S. Ananda And Ors. vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 18 January, 1983

18. Thus all the contentions put forward by the learned Government pleader as not tenable and, therefore, following the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhim Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others these writ petitions are allowed in so far as the impugned G.O. modifies the terminal benefits offered in the earlier G.O. of the year 1974 to the prejudice of the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

K.S.R.T.C. vs Varghese on 24 March, 2004

In Bhim Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. ((1981) 2 SCC 673) a three-member Bench of the Apex Court held that Government employees moving over to the new department because of certain inducements held out by the Government, cannot go back. In this case, when the employees of the State Government were transferred, they ,were promised that their service conditions will not be adversely affected as can be seen from various provisions quoted above. So, they cannot be put in a disadvantageous situation.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Sh. Shambhu Dayal Gupta And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 15 October, 1999

10. We find that the same principle was subsequently reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 768. The State Government in that case held out certain specific promises as inducement for its employees to move into a newly created department. Employees acted on being invited by State Government, the Apex Court held that having acted thereon, the employees could not be denied rights and benefits promised to them.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 January, 2023

In support of his arguments, Counsel for 3 of 15 ::: Downloaded on - 28-05-2023 08:10:05 ::: Neutral Citation No:= CWP No.18208 of 2021 4 the petitioner further relies upon various judgments rendered by this Court in Civil Writ No.383 of 1963 titled as Jagmohan Lal vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 18th of August, 1966, RSA No.897 of 1963 titled as Prem Singh vs. State of Punjab (Now Haryana State) decided on 13.10.1967, CWP No.7178 of 2002 titled as Bhim Singh vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 12th of March, 2012, CWP No.18618 of 2012 titled as Amir Singh vs. State of Punjab and another decided on 27th of April, 2015, CWP No.26076 of 2013 titled as Jaswinder Kaur vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others decided on 24th of July, 2015, CWP No.5139 of 2014 titled as Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam Limited decided on 21st of May, 2015 and judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.897 of 2017 titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others vs. Jagdish Lal decided on 11th of May, 2022.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - P Jain - Full Document

Kothari Oil Products Company vs Government Of Gujarat on 16 July, 1981

Though the decision in Bhim Singh's case (supra) was delivered on 24th July, 1979 and the decision in Jit Ram's case (supra) was delivered on ,April 16, 1980, the decision in Bhim Singh's case is not considered in the case of Jit Ram's case but the principle so far as the instant case is concerned is the same, namely, that if the Government or any authority on behalf of the Government has made a representation and acting on that representation a party has altered its situation, then, it is not open to the Government to resile from that position and at the instance of the party who has altered its situation to its disadvantage, the Court is entitled to direct the Government or the authority to carry out its promises as its scheme.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

P.P.P. Industries vs Commissioner Of Industries And Anr. on 13 August, 1993

9. It is too late in the day now to urge that the petitioners are not entitled to claim relief on the basis of equitable estopped. A catena of decisions of the Supreme Court from Union of India v. Angle Afghan Agencies AIR 1968 SC 718, Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council , Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. v. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. , Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 1496, Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd v. State of U.P. , Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat , Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana , Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotel Pvt. Ltd. , Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. , Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Union of India and Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 1; , have positively held that promissory estoppel is a plea which is enforceable and that the essential elements of that plea consists of a promise by representation by one, on which, the promissee acts and alters his position. We have no doubt that clause 3 of G.O. No. 498 amounted to a representation to persons like the petitioners who acted upon the promise contained therein and altered their position as a consequence thereof. Those factors were sufficient to attract the principles of promissory estopped as found by the decisions referred to above. As a matter of fact the respondents had acted upon the representation containing the above promise by granting relief to the petitioners, but they limited relief to the restricted extent only.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next