Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing M.L. Kalra vs Union Of India And Anr. on 28 November, 2008

Ravendra Pal Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 October, 2019

Although, it is clear as per the view taken by the 5 Writ Petition No.12986/2019 Division Bench in the case of M.L. Kalia (supra) that the provisions of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules are applicable to the Government servants having status of officiating, temporary and permanent employees. Since the petitioner has acquired the status of permanent employee as per the notification issued by the State Government on 07.10.2016, he was also entitled to get the benefit as has been provided to the employees of the State Government. Further, if Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rules is seen that deals with the application of the Fundamental Rules and it provides as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Balwant Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 March, 2022

Thus, import of the judgment in the case of M.L.Kalia (supra) is that a holder of a post irrespective of its capacity is entitled to keep the age of superannuation as is prescribed in rule 56(A). There is no reference to officiating service in sub rule (1) of FR56 which has been amended vide M.P. Shashikiya Sewak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1987.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

V.Gopinathan vs M/S.Repco Home Financial Limited on 1 August, 2023

In this regard, the learned counsel for 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25758 of 2014 the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of M.L.Kalra Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in 2008 SCC Online Del 1210, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that loan proposal was sanctioned by the Board of Directors. Primary liability was of the sanctioning authority and without proceeding against the Directors, no action could be taken against the appellant. The appellant was only a recommending authority and his responsibility was therefore subjected to the decision of the immediate specified superior authority The appellant's immediate superior authority made no complaint against him and therefore, no proceedings could be initiated against the appellant.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Monga vs Uco Bank & Ors. on 1 July, 2010

However I find that an earlier Division Bench of this Court in Ved Prakash Malhotra Vs. State Bank of India MANU/DE/0303/1973 (and which was unfortunately not cited before the Division Bench in M.L. Kalra (supra)) held that "Even if it is assumed that all of them had been equally responsible, the action taken against the petitioner does not become discriminatory merely because similar action was not taken against the others. All that the petitioner could be allowed to urge is that action should be taken against the others. He cannot urge that action should not be taken against him for that reason."
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar Debey vs The State Of M.P. on 25 September, 2019

Although, it is clear as per the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of M.L. Kalia (supra) that the provisions of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules are 6 Writ Petition No.15053/2019 applicable to the Government servants having status of officiating, temporary and permanent employees. Since the petitioner has acquired the status of permanent employee as per the notification issued by the State Government on 07.10.2016, he was also entitled to get the benefit as has been provided to the employees of the State Government. Further, if Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rules is seen that deals with the application of the Fundamental Rules and it provides as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Rashid Mohammed Tai vs Water Resource Department on 2 December, 2019

Although, it is clear as per the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of M.L. Kalia (supra) that the provisions of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules are Writ Petition No.15053/2019 applicable to the Government servants having status of officiating, temporary and permanent employees. Since the petitioner has acquired the status of permanent employee as per the notification issued by the State Government on 07.10.2016, he was also entitled to get the benefit as has been provided to the employees of the State Government. Further, if Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rules is seen that deals with the application of the Fundamental Rules and it provides as under:-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document

Shri D.K. Gupta vs Punjab National Bank on 6 August, 2013

13. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.L. Kalra Vs. Union of India and Anr. 155 (2008) DLT 365 (DB) to argue that the facts of the present case are very similar to the case of M.L. Kalra (supra) because in the case of M.L. Kalra (supra) the Court set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority because chargesheet was issued with delay of six years and higher authorities were found responsible but no action was taken against the said higher placed person.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1   2 Next