Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Punjab vs Ajit Singh on 17 September, 2007

Rajbir Singh Nehra vs Haryana State Agricultural Marketing ... on 27 April, 2023

The decision to the contrary taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in these and other cases (State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh, (1988)1 SLR 96 and State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, (1986)3 SLR 379 is not correct and stands overruled." In the present case, there is no challenge to the order by which the benefit of arrears was declined to the appellant-plaintiff, hence, in the absence of any challenge to the said order dated 04.09.1997 within a period of limitation, no relief could have been granted to the appellant-plaintiff, hence, the view taken by the lower appellate court is perfectly valid and legal.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

State Of J&K And Ors vs Mohammad Syed Khan on 17 July, 2012

The decision to the contrary rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in cases of State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh (1988) 1 SLR 96 and State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1986) 3 SLR 379 were overruled. Accordingly, the judgment in Syed Qamaralis case has been considerably diluted and there is no rule of law laid down that a void order is not required to be challenged and the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply to such an order presuming that the order dated 17.05.1990 suffered from some illegality.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 13 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Mohinder Singh on 3 March, 2010

These observations are of little assistance to the plaintiffs in the present case. This Court only emphasized that since the order of dismissal was invalid being contrary to para 241 of the Berar Police Regulations, it need to be set aside. But it may be noted that Syed Qamarali brought the suit within the period of limitation. He was dismissed on 22 December, 1945. His appeal against the order of dismissal was rejected by the Provincial Government on 9 April, 1947. He brought the suit which has given rise to the appeal before Supreme Court on 8 December 1952. The right to sue accrued to Regular Second Appeal No. 1116 of 1986 6 Syed Qamarali when the Provincial Government rejected his appeal affirming the original order of dismissal and the suit was brought within six years from that date as prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Accordingly, it was held that the suit for declaration of the order of dismissal or termination from service passed against the plaintiff is wrong, illegal and ultra vires and is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The contrary position by this Court in the cases of State of Punjab versus Ajit Singh (1988) 1 SLR 96 (P&H) and State of Punjab versus Sh. Ram Singh, (1986) 3 Service Law Reporter 379 were found not correct and were so overruled.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Singh - Full Document

Anita Rani vs State Of Haryana And Another on 30 April, 2024

A suit for declara- tion that an order of dismissal or termination from service passed against 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 04-05-2024 06:34:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058756 CM-6993-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-4073-2020 5 the plaintiff is wrongful, illegal or ultra vires is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act The decision to the contrary taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in. these and other cases ((i)State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh,.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document

State Of J&K And Ors vs Constable Sanjeet Kumar on 16 July, 2012

The decision to the contrary rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in cases of State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh (1988) 1 SLR 96 and State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1986) 3 SLR 379 were overruled. Accordingly, the judgment in Syed Qamaralis case has been considerably diluted and there is no rule of law laid down that a void order is not required to be challenged and the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply to such an order presuming that the order dated 08.02.1990 suffered from some illegality.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dr.Dya Ram Tripathi S/O Late Rameshar ... vs State Of U P ... on 20 October, 2011

In the case of State of Punjab vs. Ajit Singh [1998 SCC (L&S) 154], the High Court dismissed the charge sheet as meritless, though charges were supported with documentary evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disapproved the decision of the High Court and held that unless the charged officer had replied to the charges, interference by Courts in the administrative function was premature.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagmahender Singh vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 22 April, 2024

A suit for declara- tion that an order of dismissal 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 27-04-2024 05:13:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054080 CWP-8857-2024 2024:PHHC:054080 6 or termination from service passed against the plaintiff is wrongful, illegal or ultra vires is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act The decision to the contrary taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in. these and other cases ((i)State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh,.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - H S Sethi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next