Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 70 (4.14 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 April, 1989

Director, Central State Farm And Ors. vs Judge, Labour Court And Ors. on 16 January, 1991

7. Much stress has been laid by Mr. R.R. Vyas, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India . That was not a case of misconduct. It was a case of temporary Govt. servant, whose services were being extended from time to time and it was alleged that on the last occasion, the authorities recorded that the work and performance of the appellant is not satisfactory and, therefore, she cannot be recommended for re-appointment.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

Sandeep Singh vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 3 July, 2018

In the case of Mathew P. Thomas Vs. Kerala State Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd. and others; (2003) 3 SCC 263, the Apex Court dealing with the case of a probationer has held that whether the order of termination is simpliciter or punitive has ultimately to be decided having due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case The case of Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere Vs. Union of India and others; (1989) 3 SCC 311, is a case where the order of appointment was on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till availability of a regular candidate. The case is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand.
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 3 - R Kumar - Full Document

Manish Mithileshkumar Singh vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2021

18. Decision relied on behalf of the petitioner in case of Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India and others (supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the case as the Apex Court was considering the appointment on ad-hoc basis where as in facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of two years which was extended for further two years.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Manish Mithileshkumar Singh vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2021

18. Decision relied on behalf of the petitioner in case of Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India and others (supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the case as the Apex Court was considering the appointment on ad-hoc basis where as in facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of two years which was extended for further two years.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Principal And Secretary, K.J. Somaiya ... vs Ravindra Y. Barve And Ors. on 22 July, 2003

8. The learned Advocate for the respondent has also drawn attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India and others (supra), wherein the Apex Court had held that, in the relationship of master and servant there is a moral obligation to act fairly, and an informal, if not formal give and take, on the assessment of work of the employee should be there and the employee should be made aware of the defect in his work and deficiency in his performance. Defects or deficiencies, indifference or indiscretion may be with the employee by inadvertence and not by incapacity to work and timely communication of the assessment of work in such cases may put the employee on the right track and therefore without any such communication, it would be arbitrary to give a movement order to the employee on the ground of unsuitability. Undoubtedly, those observations were made in the facts of a case where the employee was appointed on ad hoc basis for six months or till a regular candidate from the Union Public Service Commission became available, whichever was earlier. However, the employee was continued in service by giving her successive extensions from time to time, the initial appointment was in February, 1982, whereas the extension continued till January, 1985, when her services were sought to be abruptly terminated. The Apex Court therein has also held that "We are not laying down the rule that there should be a regular enquiry in this case and all that we wish to state is that if she is to be discontinued, it is proper and necessary that she should be told in advance that her work and performance are not up to the mark." The observations having been made in the peculiar set of facts, it cannot be disputed that the same will not apply to the facts of the case in hand. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the petitioner finds it shy even to disclose at this stage the reason for the termination of the services of the respondent, apparently the respondent would be justified in contending that there was no reason for the termination of his services and bare denial of the claim of the respondent that his services were satisfactory would not have been a justification for the Tribunal to refuse to interfere in the said order of termination.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

R.K. Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 11 April, 1999

Similar view was taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal in A. N, Ramakrishnan Nair v. Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, (1987) 3 ATC 974 (CAT) (Mad) ; R.P. Suri v. Union of India, (1986) 1 ATC 323 (CAT) (ND) as well as Umesh Rai v. Union of India, (1986) 1 ATC 774 (CAT) (Pat), in those cases, it has been observed by the Tribunal that where an order is impugned for want of jurisdiction and the application is already admitted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, an objection as to non-exhaustion of remedies cannot be taken by the respondents.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - B Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next