Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Raj Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 March, 1975

Dr.G.Thamaraiselvi vs The Secretary To Government

“...24. The Legislature is competent to unilaterally alter the service conditions of the employee and that can be done with retrospective effect also, but the intention of the Legislature to apply the amended provisions with retrospective effect must be evident from the Amendment Act itself expressly or by necessary implication. The aforesaid power of the Legislature is qualified further that such a unilateral alteration of service conditions should be in conformity with legal and constitutional provisions. (Vide: Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1889; State of Mysore v. Krishna Murthy & Ors., AIR 1973 SC 1146; Raj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 1116; Ex-Capt.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

Kesar Singh Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 6 January, 2021

16. It is well settled that the power to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with a retrospective effect: B.S. Vadhera v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118; Raj Kumar v. Union of India (1975) 4 SCC 13; K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P. (1985) 1 SCC 523 and State of J & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19. It is equally well settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to lay down qualifications for promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications. The rules defining qualification and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This rule is however subject to a well recognized principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights. Therefore, unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules, cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - L P Singh - Full Document

Members Of The Retired Allopathic ... vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 24 September, 2019

"11. Rules under Article 309 can be changed even during the subsistence of the old rules. As held in Raj Kumar v. Union of India [(1975) 4 SCC 13 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 198 : AIR 1975 SC 1116] (vide SCC para 2), "rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are legislative in character, and therefore can be given effect to retrospectively". Thus, the rules under the proviso to Article 309 are constitutional rules, not like rules under a statute. Hence they have the same force as a statute, though made by the executive.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhole Govind Sahebrao vs Union Of India . on 26 March, 2015

“145. It is true that the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution can be issued by amending or altering the Rules with retrospectivity as consistently held by this Court in a catena of decisions, viz., B.S. Vadera v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118; Raj Kumar v. Union of India, (1975) 4 SCC 13; K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P., (1985) 1 SCC 523; T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana, 1986 Supp. SCC 584, and a host of other decisions. But the question is whether the Rules can be 35 amended taking away the vested right.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - J S Khehar - Full Document

As Senior Lecturer vs Union Of India And Others on 17 December, 2021

It is true that the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution can be issued by amending or altering the Rules with retrospectivity as consistently held by this Court in a catena of decisions, viz., B.S. r Vadera Vs. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118; Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India, (1975) 4 SCC 13; K. Nagaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 1 SCC 523; T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana, 1986 Supp. SCC 584, and a host of other decisions. But the question is whether the Rules can be amended taking away the vested right.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R. Madhavankutty Nair And Ors. vs The Postmaster, Head Post Office, ... on 7 April, 1978

When these original petitions came up for hearing in the first instance before our learned brother Vadakkel, J. it was felt by the learned Judge that in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1975 SC 1116 : (1975 Lab IC 669) and The State of U. P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, AIR 1976 SC 2547 : (1976 Lab IC 1647), the aforesaid view expressed by the Full Bench of this court may require reconsideration and hence the cases were referred by the learned Judge to a Division Bench. This opinion was concurred in by a Division Bench before which these cases subsequently came up for hearing and by an order of reference dated 2nd September, 1977 the Division Bench referred the original petitions to a Full Bench for consideration as to whether the matter should not be placed before a larger Bench. Thereafter, these cases went before a Full Bench of three Judges.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Jhansi Division Jal Sansthan Karmchari ... vs State Of U.P. on 5 March, 2004

In State of Mysore v. Krishna Murty and Ors., AIR 1973 SC 1146 ; Raj Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1975 SC 1116 and K.C. Arora v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1984) 3 SCC 281, the Apex Court observed that it was well-established that Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, being legislative in nature and character, could be given effect to retrospectively.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

M.P.S.R.T.C. vs Ramchandra And Ors. on 9 March, 1977

Their Lordships have in Raj Kumar v. Union of India, (AIR 1975 SC 1116) held that the servant is only entitled to claim notice or a month's emoluments, but he cannot maintain a writ petition to challenge the validity of the order on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in Senior Superintendent R. M. S. Cochin v. K. V. Gopinath (supra), inasmuch as the rule was amended. In our opinion, having regard to the language of the Standing Order No. 11, the only right of the employee is to claim one month's wages.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 8 - G L Oza - Full Document

Ashis Kumar Banik vs Tripura Co-Operative Land Development ... on 7 December, 2000

In the said case of Union of India v. Arun Kumar Roy, (supra), the Supreme Court construing a similar provision in rule 5(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, held following its earlier decision in the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India, (1975) 4 SCC 13, that it was not obligatory on the employer to pay the employee a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for the period of the notice at the rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of the services or as the case may be for the period by which such notice fell short, and that the employee concerned was only entitled to claim the said sum. In other words, the termination of service of the employee and the payment of one month's emoluments need not be simultaneous, but only by way of compensation. The impugned order of termination dated 13.12.1993 itself states that the petitioner was entitled to one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice. The petitioner is therefore entitled to the said amount of one month's salary as compensation, and the impugned order dated 13.12.1993 cannot be held to be contrary to rule 23 of the Rules.
Gauhati High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A K Patnaik - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next