Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Harbans Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 8 November, 1990

Ripu Daman Verma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 February, 2007

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned Counsel on both parties and have also perused the records. We find that the Apex Court has made an in-depth examination of issue involved in this case, while dealing with on identical case of similarly placed Officers of Central Health Services i.e. Dr. P.P.C. Rawani and Ors. v. U.O.I. and Ors. and Dr. Harbans Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 8076 of 1997 in C.A. No. 3519 of 1984 and Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 2620-59 of 1985 and I.A. Nos. 3, 5,6 and 7 of 1990, decided on October 29, 1991 [Reported in (1992)1 Supreme Court Cases, 331]. The Apex Court on detailed examination of the issues includes decided the broad principles to determine the inter-se-seniority of direct recruits v. Ad hoc appointees in Group 'A' cadre and had issued a direction to regularize the ad hoc appointees in Group 'A' cadre w.e.f. January 1, 1973 or the date of their original substantive in accordance with rules whichever is later. The issue has been debated by the Apex Court in Paras 2, 3 and 4 of the aforesaid judgment, which for convenience is reproduced as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Radha Soami Satsang Beas vs Union Of India And Ors. on 2 December, 1991

In Shanti Devi's case the court observed referring to some earlier appeals that sale deed in case of Pritam Singh's case was sufficient guide for the prevailing market price at the time of the notification under section 4 of the Act. Pritam Singh had purchased a plot of land in this very village on 15 December 1956 measuring 514 sq. yds. for a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 .
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Surjeet Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 2013

In this regard it is very relevant to refer the judgement cited by Mr. Bhattacharya reported in 1985 Lab.I.C. page 269 (Harbans Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others). The Hon'ble Court in that decision held that in every trial, whether of a summary nature or otherwise, it is required that procedure is punctually observed. The procedural law cannot be held to be 5 directory in nature. It is mandatory because it gives an opportunity to an offender to defend himself and if the procedure is violated, the opportunity of defending is taken away, more so when the punishment is sought to be inflicted. Procedural safeguards have the protection of law if the punishment is given in violation of the procedural safeguards and in violation of the mandate contained in the Rules, the punishment becomes bad in the eye of law and shall have to be struck down because it will be violative of the guarantees contained in Article 14 of the Constitution.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A K Dasadhikari - Full Document
1