Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 361 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing State Of West Bengal And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Aghore Nath Dey And Ors. Etc. Etc on 2 April, 1993

Sanjay Hingorani S/O Shri Hira Lal ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 20 August, 2015

The post was again advertised in 1995 for regular appointment and respondent No. 1 again applied, and this time he was successful and given regular appointment with effect from 05.01.1996. It has been held by this Court in Ch. Narayana Rao Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 247, and State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Aghore Nath Dey & Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 371, that ad hoc service before regularisation cannot be counted for seniority. It was contended by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that some others similarly situate have been given retrospective regularisation.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Singla vs State Of Haryana Through Financial ... on 21 July, 1995

"that such period of ad hoc service which is countable for the purposes of seniority and other service benefits in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit's case (supra) as explained in Aghore Nath's case (supra) and of the Full Benon of this Court in Chambel Singh's case (supra) shall be counted for the purpose regular service in the context of the circular dated 2.6.1989.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 17 - R P Sethi - Full Document

Sushil Pradhan & Ors vs State Of Sikkim And Ors on 25 January, 2021

Inviting the attention of this Court to the ratio in State of W.B. and Others vs. Aghore Nath Dey and Others (supra) wherein the dispute arose as a result of Promotions being made in excess of the Promotees Quota in the case of the surplus Promotees, it was contended that even if it is to be presumed that the Rules were relaxed, the relaxation can only be effective from the date of issuance of Notification by the Government in this context, i.e. in the case of the Petitioners from 19.05.2012, if not from 16.03.2013 which is the correct approach and would still render them subordinate to Respondents No.7 to 17.
Sikkim High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - M M Rai - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Ors vs Vijay Singh & Ors on 22 August, 2012

In our opinion the conclusion (B) was added to cover over a different kind of situation, wherein the appointments are otherwise regular, except for the deficiency of certain procedural requirements laid down by the rules. This is clear from the opening words of the conclusion (B), namely, 'if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules' and the later expression 'till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules'. We read conclusion (B), and it must be so read to reconcile with conclusion (A), to cover the cases where the initial appointment is made against an existing vacancy, not limited to a fixed period of time or purpose by the appointment order itself, and is made subject to the deficiency in the procedural requirements prescribed by the rules for adjudging suitability of the appointee for the post being cured at the time of regularisation, the appointee being eligible and qualified in every manner for a regular appointment on the date of initial appointment in such cases. Decision about the nature of the appointment, for determining whether it falls in this category, has to be made on the basis of the terms of the initial appointment itself and the provisions in the rules. In such cases, the deficiency in the procedural requirements laid down by the rules has to be cured at the first available opportunity, without any default of the employee, and the appointee must continue in the post uninterruptedly till the regularization of his service, in accordance with the rules. In such cases, the appointee is not to blame for the deficiency in the procedural requirements under the rules at the time of his initial appointment, and the appointment not-being limited to a fixed period of time is intended to be a regular appointment, subject to the remaining procedural requirements of the rules being fulfilled at the earliest. In such cases also, if there be any delay in curing the defects on account of any fault of the appointee, the appointee would not get the full benefit of the earlier period on account of his default, the benefit being confined only to the period for which he is not to blame. This category of cases is different from those covered by the corollary in conclusion (A) which relates to appointment only on ad hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement and not according to rules. It is, therefore, not correct to say, that the present cases can fall within the ambit of conclusion (B), even though they are squarely covered by the corollary in conclusion (A).”
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 123 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

P. Komaraiah And Ors. vs A. Yegneswarudu And Ors. on 22 August, 1994

The Supreme Court decisions in A. Janardhan and Narender Chadha cases giving benefit of ad hoc service for seniority related to inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees and there was quota for them. This quota was leading to rota for confirmation and the seniority was based on the date of confirmation. The dispute in those cases arose as a result of promotions being made in excess of quota. Law laid down in those cases cannot be applied to present cases because writ petitioners are claiming benefit of ad hoc service prior to their regular appointment as direct recruits.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next