Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.27 seconds)
Documents citing Umesh Kumar Moza vs Govt. Of J & K And Anr on 31 October, 2014

Dr. Salam Kenny Singh vs The Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 21 March, 2025

1. WP(C) No. 1104/2013, 2874/2013 and 2884/2013 [Umesh Kumar Moza vs. Govt. of J & K & Anr.] para No. 28, 29 & 30 "28. As for the merits of the case, a perusal of the order dated 9.7.2010 passed in favour of Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhat granting him the Second and the Third Time Bound Promotions w.e.f. 1.4.1994 and 1.4.1999 respectively, reveals that without any justification, a different yardstick has been applied by the respondent to the petitioner for the very same relief while issuing the impugned order dated 18.7.2011, whereunder he was granted the notional pay-scale of 4100-5300/- (pre-revised) w.e.f. 1.4.2003, but was not given the monetary benefits thereunder and w.e.f. 1.4.2011, when the said pay-scale was granted to him "monetarily". In other words, only the amount payable w.e.f. 1.4.2011 was ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner while depriving him of the monetary benefit of the upgraded pay scale for a period of eight years reckoned from 01.04.2003. No rationale has been offered for dividing the Third Time Bound Promotion granted to the petitioner in two parts at the time of issuing the impugned order; nor is there any justification for doing so when a similarly placed Assistant Surgeon employed with the respondent, namely, Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhat was granted real time benefits of the Time Bound Promotions.
Manipur High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Salam Kenny Singh vs The Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 21 March, 2025

1. WP(C) No. 1104/2013, 2874/2013 and 2884/2013 [Umesh Kumar Moza vs. Govt. of J & K & Anr.] para No. 28, 29 & 30 "28. As for the merits of the case, a perusal of the order dated 9.7.2010 passed in favour of Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhat granting him the Second and the Third Time Bound Promotions w.e.f. 1.4.1994 and 1.4.1999 respectively, reveals that without any justification, a different yardstick has been applied by the respondent to the petitioner for the very same relief while issuing the impugned order dated 18.7.2011, whereunder he was granted the notional pay-scale of 4100-5300/- (pre-revised) w.e.f. 1.4.2003, but was not given the monetary benefits thereunder and w.e.f. 1.4.2011, when the said pay-scale was granted to him "monetarily". In other words, only the amount payable w.e.f. 1.4.2011 was ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner while depriving him of the monetary benefit of the upgraded pay scale for a period of eight years reckoned from 01.04.2003. No rationale has been offered for dividing the Third Time Bound Promotion granted to the petitioner in two parts at the time of issuing the impugned order; nor is there any justification for doing so when a similarly placed Assistant Surgeon employed with the respondent, namely, Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhat was granted real time benefits of the Time Bound Promotions.
Manipur High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Salam Kenny Singh vs The Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 21 March, 2025

1. WP(C) No. 1104/2013, 2874/2013 and 2884/2013 [Umesh Kumar Moza vs. Govt. of J & K & Anr.] para No. 28, 29 & 30 "28. As for the merits of the case, a perusal of the order dated 9.7.2010 passed in favour of Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhat granting him the Second and the Third Time Bound Promotions w.e.f. 1.4.1994 and 1.4.1999 respectively, reveals that without any justification, a different yardstick has been applied by the respondent to the petitioner for the very same relief while issuing the impugned order dated 18.7.2011, whereunder he was granted the notional pay-scale of 4100-5300/- (pre-revised) w.e.f. 1.4.2003, but was not given the monetary benefits thereunder and w.e.f. 1.4.2011, when the said pay-scale was granted to him "monetarily". In other words, only the amount payable w.e.f. 1.4.2011 was ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner while depriving him of the monetary benefit of the upgraded pay scale for a period of eight years reckoned from 01.04.2003. No rationale has been offered for dividing the Third Time Bound Promotion granted to the petitioner in two parts at the time of issuing the impugned order; nor is there any justification for doing so when a similarly placed Assistant Surgeon employed with the respondent, namely, Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhat was granted real time benefits of the Time Bound Promotions.
Manipur High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Salam Kenny Singh vs The Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 21 March, 2025

1. WP(C) No. 1104/2013, 2874/2013 and 2884/2013 [Umesh Kumar Moza vs. Govt. of J & K & Anr.] para No. 28, 29 & 30 "28. As for the merits of the case, a perusal of the order dated 9.7.2010 passed in favour of Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhat granting him the Second and the Third Time Bound Promotions w.e.f. 1.4.1994 and 1.4.1999 respectively, reveals that without any justification, a different yardstick has been applied by the respondent to the petitioner for the very same relief while issuing the impugned order dated 18.7.2011, whereunder he was granted the notional pay-scale of 4100-5300/- (pre-revised) w.e.f. 1.4.2003, but was not given the monetary benefits thereunder and w.e.f. 1.4.2011, when the said pay-scale was granted to him "monetarily". In other words, only the amount payable w.e.f. 1.4.2011 was ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner while depriving him of the monetary benefit of the upgraded pay scale for a period of eight years reckoned from 01.04.2003. No rationale has been offered for dividing the Third Time Bound Promotion granted to the petitioner in two parts at the time of issuing the impugned order; nor is there any justification for doing so when a similarly placed Assistant Surgeon employed with the respondent, namely, Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhat was granted real time benefits of the Time Bound Promotions.
Manipur High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Chaman Lal Dulloo vs Government Of J&K And Anr. on 8 May, 2023

Insofar as the objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, suffice would it be to state that a similar objection was raised by the Respondents in Umesh Kumar Moza (supra) and by a detailed reasoning and relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court, the objection was overruled. I may profitably allude to few passages from the said judgment as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Dr. Ravi Raman Dhar vs Government Of J & K And Anr. on 8 May, 2023

Insofar as the objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, suffice would it be to state that a similar objection was raised by the Respondents in Umesh Kumar Moza (supra) and by a detailed reasoning and relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court, the objection was overruled. I may profitably allude to few passages from the said judgment as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Kachroo vs Government Of J & K And Anr. on 8 May, 2023

Insofar as the objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, suffice would it be to state that a similar objection was raised by the Respondents in Umesh Kumar Moza (supra) and by a detailed reasoning and relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court, the objection was overruled. I may profitably allude to few passages from the said judgment as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Dr. Vijay Kumar Kachroo vs Government Of J & K Anr. on 8 May, 2023

Insofar as the objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, suffice would it be to state that a similar objection was raised by the Respondents in Umesh Kumar Moza (supra) and by a detailed reasoning and relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court, the objection was overruled. I may profitably allude to few passages from the said judgment as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Dr. Rajinder Kumar Trisal vs Government Of J&K And Anr. on 8 May, 2023

Insofar as the objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, suffice would it be to state that a similar objection was raised by the Respondents in Umesh Kumar Moza (supra) and by a detailed reasoning and relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court, the objection was overruled. I may profitably allude to few passages from the said judgment as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Dr. Upender Krishen Wali vs Government Of J & K And Anr. on 8 May, 2023

Insofar as the objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is concerned, suffice would it be to state that a similar objection was raised by the Respondents in Umesh Kumar Moza (supra) and by a detailed reasoning and relying on several judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court, the objection was overruled. I may profitably allude to few passages from the said judgment as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next