Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 63 (3.34 seconds)
Documents citing Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 April, 2001

Pratap Singh (Pensioner) vs Director, Subsidiary Intelligence ... on 23 August, 2006

The arena as to the right of pensioners to be reimbursed the medical expenses under CS (MA) Rules is covered by a judicial order which cannot be infiltrated by an administrative order with a view to make it ineffective, which is not only deprecated but also held to be illegal by the Apex Court in Anil Rattan Sarkar v. State of West Bengal .
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

New Delhi This The 24Th Day Of August vs Union Of India on 24 August, 2009

12. Admittedly, the issue involved in the case of Shri J.P. Jain as well as in the present case is the same; namely, whether deputation allowance is to be treated as part of the pay at the time of fixation of pension. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has answered this question in affirmative. Union of India had gone in appeal against the order of this Tribunal in W.P.( C)9275 to 9277 of 2006 which has been disposed of by the Honble High Court vide its order dated 26.5.2006. It would be expedient to refer to Para 2 of the said order which reads as follows 2. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Anil Ratan Sarkar & Others Vs. State of West Bengal & Others, reported in 2001 (5) SCC 327 and in particular the following extract:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Samala Rajak vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 March, 2022

The petitioner is the sole Scheduled Caste candidate in Mankiary Gram Panchayat, District Purulia. The petitioner was removed. The petitioner proposed her name for being elected but the election was not held because none had proposed the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that the law does not permit the petitioner to propose her own name. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the matter of Prahbati Sarkar & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2010) 2 WBLR(Cal) 201, held that one member should be compelled to resign and a by-election must be 2 held so that a scheduled caste candidate can be elected by the electorate and thereafter the said elected candidate may be elected as a Pradhan.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S Sarkar - Full Document

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ram Swarup Rajwade on 7 June, 2021

by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is in fact would have the effect of "judgment in rem" and "judgment of the court was not judgment in personam" confining its applicability to the parties to the lis. Therefore, the contention of the State Government that the order dated 10-12-2020 will only be applicable to the parties to writ petition (Ram Swarup Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh and another) and other cases will be governed by the notification dated 12-9-2014, deserves to be rejected for the above-stated reasons including that administrative notification cannot infiltrate on to an area covered by judicial order as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Anil Ratan Sarkar (supra).
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next