N.Kullayamma And 3 Ors vs The South Central Railway on 28 June, 2024
24. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Suman Sharma
v. Union of India (cited supra), on this aspect held that:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.40 seconds)Documents citing
Mr. Suman Sharma vs Union Of India . on 21 April, 2016
J Sulochana, Chittoor Dist And 3 Others vs Union Of India, Secunderabad on 22 July, 2024
24. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Suman Sharma v. Union of
India (cited supra) also held that:
V Srinivasarao vs Union Of India on 27 December, 2023
9. To support her contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied
upon a decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh reported in
Suman Sharma v. Union of India1, wherein it was held that
Merely because there has been no recovery, as such, of any ticket
from the body of the deceased, would not be a ground to deny the benefit of
the no fault liability, which is to be paid on account of the untoward incident,
under Section 124. The statement of the appellant would go on to show that
her husband was shuttling between Ambala and Parwanoo and therefore,
presumption would arise that if he was using the facilities of Railways for
travelling from Kalka which is well connected with Ambala. He would be
using a ticket or a pass and therefore, would normally travel alone, in
pursuance of his duties assigned to him, as per his employer and in search of
his professional work. The appellant-wife could not, in such circumstances,
depose regarding the details of travel with a valid ticket and details of such
journey, thus, could not have been given by the appellant-wife being
stationed 200 kms away at Hamirpur.
G. Sambireddy vs Union Of India on 8 May, 2025
Suman Sharma v. Union of India^, wherein it was held that
Merely because there has been no recovery, as such, of any ticket
from the body of the deceased, would not be a ground to deny the beneift of
the no fault liability, which is to be paid on account of the untoward incident,
under Section 124. The statement of the appellant would go on to show that
her husband was shuttling between Ambala and Parwanoo and therefore,
presumption would arise that if he was using the facilities of Railways for
travelling from Kalka which is well connected with Ambala. He would be
using a ticket or a pass and therefore, would normally travel alone, in
pursuance of his duties assigned to him, as per his employer and in search of
his professional work. The appellant-wife could not, in such circumstances,
depose regarding the details of travel with a valid ticket and details of such
journey, thus, could not have been given by the appellant-wife being
stationed200 kms away at Hamirpur.
G. Sambireddy vs Union Of India on 8 May, 2025
Suman Sharma v. Union of India^, wherein it was held that
Merely because there has been no recovery, as such, of any ticket
from the body of the deceased, would not be a ground to deny the beneift of
the no fault liability, which is to be paid on account of the untoward incident,
under Section 124. The statement of the appellant would go on to show that
her husband was shuttling between Ambala and Parwanoo and therefore,
presumption would arise that if he was using the facilities of Railways for
travelling from Kalka which is well connected with Ambala. He would be
using a ticket or a pass and therefore, would normally travel alone, in
pursuance of his duties assigned to him, as per his employer and in search of
his professional work. The appellant-wife could not, in such circumstances,
depose regarding the details of travel with a valid ticket and details of such
journey, thus, could not have been given by the appellant-wife being
stationed200 kms away at Hamirpur.
Uma Devi vs M/O Defence on 18 February, 2026
12. Now the question is whether if the probation period is not
extended within its time, it shall be a deemed confirmation or not.
This issue was considered time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and in catena of judgments has held that deemed confirmation
after the expiry of the maximum probation period is not an
automatic or implied process but requires a positive express act of
confirmation by the employer. An explicit order of confirmation is
necessary, and mere continuation in service is not sufficient to
presume deemed confirmation (vide High Court of M.P through
Registrar Vs. Satya Narayan Thavar - 2001 6 Supreme 106, Suman
Sharma Vs. Union of India - 2014 0 Supreme (HP) 1454, Chief
General Manager, State Bank of India Vs. Bijoy Kumar Mishra -
1997 8 Supreme 388, Wasim Beg Vs. State of U.P - 1998 3 Supreme
21, Amit Sharma Vs. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
and others 2025 Supreme (Online) (Del) 2603).
Ramesh Bhimrao Salunkhe And Another vs Union Of India, Through The General ... on 6 March, 2020
He
has pointed out decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case
of Suman Sharma Vs. Union of India reported in I (2019) ACC 327
(P&H).
Monika Gogoi Sonowal vs Union Of India on 28 November, 2022
8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a
Judgment between "Suman Sharma v. Union of India"2,
wherein it was held that merely in the absence of the ticket on the
body of the deceased, it would not disentitle the appellant to claim
2
2018 ACJ 2849
6 SSRN,J
C.M.A. No.64 of 2022
compensation, in the absence of any such proof that he had
committed suicide or was intoxicated, as such, to fall within the
exceptions under Section 124-A and could not be held to be a
trespasser in the railway train.
Gottimukkala Kiran Babu vs C.M.A.No.179 Of 202 on 2 April, 2026
Further, in Suman Sharma vs.
Union of India1, it was held in paragraph 9 as follows:
1