Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 73 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs S.K. Saigal & Ors on 15 November, 2006

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Kerala State Wakf Board on 13 August, 2021

In Union of India v. S.K. Saigal [(2007) 14 SCC 556], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, the question that came up for consideration before the Apex Court was as to whether Rule 7(2)(b) of the Central Ground Water Board (Scientific Group-A post) Recruitment Rules, 1995 could be brushed aside without challenging the Rules and whether the mandate of the Rules could be ignored in the absence of a challenge and without striking it down. In C.R.P.No.412 of 2012 26 the said decision, the Apex Court held that, in the absence of a challenge to the vires of the Rules, the respondents were not entitled for the reliefs sought for in O.A.No.422 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Apex Court noticed that, in the original application before the Tribunal, there is not even a whisper of challenge against the Rules as discriminatory or ultra vires, much less Rule 7(2)
Kerala High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India &Amp; Others vs Sudarshan Sharma on 14 September, 2018

8. In fact it is apparent that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court noticed the plea taken by department therein that there is a clear 14 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) distinction between retired and the serving employees whose perks cannot be equated on the ground of any legitimate principle or any touch stone of law. He has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in cases titled as 'CONFEDERATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS' reported as 2006(4) SCT 128, 'STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA' reported as 1998(1) SCT 716 and 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. S.K.SAIGAL AND OTHERS' reported as 2007(1) SCT 286. After noticing the history of cases on the issue, the Court has held "We are thus of the opinion that given the judicial finality accorded in an identical petition which is not even remotely deviant from the present one, there is no reason for us not to take a similar view. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not in any way enhance their case. It is pertinent to mention here that we are dealing with the cases of persons who have retired and are in dire need of medical attention in their old age. It is also an accepted fact by the petitioners themselves that CGHS facilities are not available in most of the areas where the respondents reside including an important town like Ambala. If that be so, then the observations extracted above would be attracted to the present cases in all ferocity." In fact, the Hon‟ble High Court also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble H.P. High Court in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHANKAR LAL SHARMA' reported as 2016(1) SCT 413, in which it was held that "Note 2 appended to Rule 1 is read down to extend the benefit of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 to retired Government officials residing in non-CGHS areas to save it from unconstitutionality and 15 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) to make it workable". Despite, this the respondents did not woke up and kept on placing reliance on said decision to reject the claim of the pensioners / retirees. The finding of this Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court that any instructions, clarification of 2004 or the redundant rules, framed before enforcement of Constitution, are illegal, inoperative and deserve to be "ignored". In other words, these rules have not been quashed by the Tribunal. These are only to be ignored by the respondents. The Bench has only quashed the impugned orders. The declaration of rule as inoperative does not mean, that the same stands deleted from the statute book. If that makes the respondents happy, it can be kept therein as an ornament only in so far as the entitlement of retired employees to medical reimbursement is concerned.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Union Of India &Amp; Others vs Kanwar Chattar Singh on 14 September, 2018

8. In fact it is apparent that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court noticed the plea taken by department therein that there is a clear 14 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) distinction between retired and the serving employees whose perks cannot be equated on the ground of any legitimate principle or any touch stone of law. He has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in cases titled as 'CONFEDERATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS' reported as 2006(4) SCT 128, 'STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA' reported as 1998(1) SCT 716 and 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. S.K.SAIGAL AND OTHERS' reported as 2007(1) SCT 286. After noticing the history of cases on the issue, the Court has held "We are thus of the opinion that given the judicial finality accorded in an identical petition which is not even remotely deviant from the present one, there is no reason for us not to take a similar view. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not in any way enhance their case. It is pertinent to mention here that we are dealing with the cases of persons who have retired and are in dire need of medical attention in their old age. It is also an accepted fact by the petitioners themselves that CGHS facilities are not available in most of the areas where the respondents reside including an important town like Ambala. If that be so, then the observations extracted above would be attracted to the present cases in all ferocity." In fact, the Hon‟ble High Court also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble H.P. High Court in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHANKAR LAL SHARMA' reported as 2016(1) SCT 413, in which it was held that "Note 2 appended to Rule 1 is read down to extend the benefit of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 to retired Government officials residing in non-CGHS areas to save it from unconstitutionality and 15 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) to make it workable". Despite, this the respondents did not woke up and kept on placing reliance on said decision to reject the claim of the pensioners / retirees. The finding of this Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court that any instructions, clarification of 2004 or the redundant rules, framed before enforcement of Constitution, are illegal, inoperative and deserve to be "ignored". In other words, these rules have not been quashed by the Tribunal. These are only to be ignored by the respondents. The Bench has only quashed the impugned orders. The declaration of rule as inoperative does not mean, that the same stands deleted from the statute book. If that makes the respondents happy, it can be kept therein as an ornament only in so far as the entitlement of retired employees to medical reimbursement is concerned.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Union Of India &Amp; Others vs Manohar Lal Bansal on 14 September, 2018

8. In fact it is apparent that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court noticed the plea taken by department therein that there is a clear 14 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) distinction between retired and the serving employees whose perks cannot be equated on the ground of any legitimate principle or any touch stone of law. He has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in cases titled as 'CONFEDERATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS' reported as 2006(4) SCT 128, 'STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA' reported as 1998(1) SCT 716 and 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. S.K.SAIGAL AND OTHERS' reported as 2007(1) SCT 286. After noticing the history of cases on the issue, the Court has held "We are thus of the opinion that given the judicial finality accorded in an identical petition which is not even remotely deviant from the present one, there is no reason for us not to take a similar view. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not in any way enhance their case. It is pertinent to mention here that we are dealing with the cases of persons who have retired and are in dire need of medical attention in their old age. It is also an accepted fact by the petitioners themselves that CGHS facilities are not available in most of the areas where the respondents reside including an important town like Ambala. If that be so, then the observations extracted above would be attracted to the present cases in all ferocity." In fact, the Hon‟ble High Court also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble H.P. High Court in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHANKAR LAL SHARMA' reported as 2016(1) SCT 413, in which it was held that "Note 2 appended to Rule 1 is read down to extend the benefit of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 to retired Government officials residing in non-CGHS areas to save it from unconstitutionality and 15 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) to make it workable". Despite, this the respondents did not woke up and kept on placing reliance on said decision to reject the claim of the pensioners / retirees. The finding of this Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court that any instructions, clarification of 2004 or the redundant rules, framed before enforcement of Constitution, are illegal, inoperative and deserve to be "ignored". In other words, these rules have not been quashed by the Tribunal. These are only to be ignored by the respondents. The Bench has only quashed the impugned orders. The declaration of rule as inoperative does not mean, that the same stands deleted from the statute book. If that makes the respondents happy, it can be kept therein as an ornament only in so far as the entitlement of retired employees to medical reimbursement is concerned.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Union Of India &Amp; Others vs P.N. Behal on 14 September, 2018

8. In fact it is apparent that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court noticed the plea taken by department therein that there is a clear 14 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) distinction between retired and the serving employees whose perks cannot be equated on the ground of any legitimate principle or any touch stone of law. He has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in cases titled as 'CONFEDERATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS' reported as 2006(4) SCT 128, 'STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA' reported as 1998(1) SCT 716 and 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. S.K.SAIGAL AND OTHERS' reported as 2007(1) SCT 286. After noticing the history of cases on the issue, the Court has held "We are thus of the opinion that given the judicial finality accorded in an identical petition which is not even remotely deviant from the present one, there is no reason for us not to take a similar view. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not in any way enhance their case. It is pertinent to mention here that we are dealing with the cases of persons who have retired and are in dire need of medical attention in their old age. It is also an accepted fact by the petitioners themselves that CGHS facilities are not available in most of the areas where the respondents reside including an important town like Ambala. If that be so, then the observations extracted above would be attracted to the present cases in all ferocity." In fact, the Hon‟ble High Court also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble H.P. High Court in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHANKAR LAL SHARMA' reported as 2016(1) SCT 413, in which it was held that "Note 2 appended to Rule 1 is read down to extend the benefit of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 to retired Government officials residing in non-CGHS areas to save it from unconstitutionality and 15 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) to make it workable". Despite, this the respondents did not woke up and kept on placing reliance on said decision to reject the claim of the pensioners / retirees. The finding of this Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court that any instructions, clarification of 2004 or the redundant rules, framed before enforcement of Constitution, are illegal, inoperative and deserve to be "ignored". In other words, these rules have not been quashed by the Tribunal. These are only to be ignored by the respondents. The Bench has only quashed the impugned orders. The declaration of rule as inoperative does not mean, that the same stands deleted from the statute book. If that makes the respondents happy, it can be kept therein as an ornament only in so far as the entitlement of retired employees to medical reimbursement is concerned.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Union Of India &Amp; Others vs A.L. Anand on 14 September, 2018

8. In fact it is apparent that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court noticed the plea taken by department therein that there is a clear 14 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) distinction between retired and the serving employees whose perks cannot be equated on the ground of any legitimate principle or any touch stone of law. He has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in cases titled as 'CONFEDERATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS' reported as 2006(4) SCT 128, 'STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA' reported as 1998(1) SCT 716 and 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. S.K.SAIGAL AND OTHERS' reported as 2007(1) SCT 286. After noticing the history of cases on the issue, the Court has held "We are thus of the opinion that given the judicial finality accorded in an identical petition which is not even remotely deviant from the present one, there is no reason for us not to take a similar view. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not in any way enhance their case. It is pertinent to mention here that we are dealing with the cases of persons who have retired and are in dire need of medical attention in their old age. It is also an accepted fact by the petitioners themselves that CGHS facilities are not available in most of the areas where the respondents reside including an important town like Ambala. If that be so, then the observations extracted above would be attracted to the present cases in all ferocity." In fact, the Hon‟ble High Court also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble H.P. High Court in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHANKAR LAL SHARMA' reported as 2016(1) SCT 413, in which it was held that "Note 2 appended to Rule 1 is read down to extend the benefit of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 to retired Government officials residing in non-CGHS areas to save it from unconstitutionality and 15 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) to make it workable". Despite, this the respondents did not woke up and kept on placing reliance on said decision to reject the claim of the pensioners / retirees. The finding of this Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court that any instructions, clarification of 2004 or the redundant rules, framed before enforcement of Constitution, are illegal, inoperative and deserve to be "ignored". In other words, these rules have not been quashed by the Tribunal. These are only to be ignored by the respondents. The Bench has only quashed the impugned orders. The declaration of rule as inoperative does not mean, that the same stands deleted from the statute book. If that makes the respondents happy, it can be kept therein as an ornament only in so far as the entitlement of retired employees to medical reimbursement is concerned.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Union Of India &Amp; Others vs Suraj Parkash Malik on 14 September, 2018

8. In fact it is apparent that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court noticed the plea taken by department therein that there is a clear 14 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) distinction between retired and the serving employees whose perks cannot be equated on the ground of any legitimate principle or any touch stone of law. He has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in cases titled as 'CONFEDERATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS' reported as 2006(4) SCT 128, 'STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA' reported as 1998(1) SCT 716 and 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. S.K.SAIGAL AND OTHERS' reported as 2007(1) SCT 286. After noticing the history of cases on the issue, the Court has held "We are thus of the opinion that given the judicial finality accorded in an identical petition which is not even remotely deviant from the present one, there is no reason for us not to take a similar view. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not in any way enhance their case. It is pertinent to mention here that we are dealing with the cases of persons who have retired and are in dire need of medical attention in their old age. It is also an accepted fact by the petitioners themselves that CGHS facilities are not available in most of the areas where the respondents reside including an important town like Ambala. If that be so, then the observations extracted above would be attracted to the present cases in all ferocity." In fact, the Hon‟ble High Court also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble H.P. High Court in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHANKAR LAL SHARMA' reported as 2016(1) SCT 413, in which it was held that "Note 2 appended to Rule 1 is read down to extend the benefit of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 to retired Government officials residing in non-CGHS areas to save it from unconstitutionality and 15 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) to make it workable". Despite, this the respondents did not woke up and kept on placing reliance on said decision to reject the claim of the pensioners / retirees. The finding of this Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court that any instructions, clarification of 2004 or the redundant rules, framed before enforcement of Constitution, are illegal, inoperative and deserve to be "ignored". In other words, these rules have not been quashed by the Tribunal. These are only to be ignored by the respondents. The Bench has only quashed the impugned orders. The declaration of rule as inoperative does not mean, that the same stands deleted from the statute book. If that makes the respondents happy, it can be kept therein as an ornament only in so far as the entitlement of retired employees to medical reimbursement is concerned.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Union Of India &Amp; Others vs Swaran Kanta on 14 September, 2018

8. In fact it is apparent that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court noticed the plea taken by department therein that there is a clear 14 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) distinction between retired and the serving employees whose perks cannot be equated on the ground of any legitimate principle or any touch stone of law. He has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in cases titled as 'CONFEDERATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS' reported as 2006(4) SCT 128, 'STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA' reported as 1998(1) SCT 716 and 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. S.K.SAIGAL AND OTHERS' reported as 2007(1) SCT 286. After noticing the history of cases on the issue, the Court has held "We are thus of the opinion that given the judicial finality accorded in an identical petition which is not even remotely deviant from the present one, there is no reason for us not to take a similar view. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not in any way enhance their case. It is pertinent to mention here that we are dealing with the cases of persons who have retired and are in dire need of medical attention in their old age. It is also an accepted fact by the petitioners themselves that CGHS facilities are not available in most of the areas where the respondents reside including an important town like Ambala. If that be so, then the observations extracted above would be attracted to the present cases in all ferocity." In fact, the Hon‟ble High Court also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble H.P. High Court in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHANKAR LAL SHARMA' reported as 2016(1) SCT 413, in which it was held that "Note 2 appended to Rule 1 is read down to extend the benefit of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 to retired Government officials residing in non-CGHS areas to save it from unconstitutionality and 15 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) to make it workable". Despite, this the respondents did not woke up and kept on placing reliance on said decision to reject the claim of the pensioners / retirees. The finding of this Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court that any instructions, clarification of 2004 or the redundant rules, framed before enforcement of Constitution, are illegal, inoperative and deserve to be "ignored". In other words, these rules have not been quashed by the Tribunal. These are only to be ignored by the respondents. The Bench has only quashed the impugned orders. The declaration of rule as inoperative does not mean, that the same stands deleted from the statute book. If that makes the respondents happy, it can be kept therein as an ornament only in so far as the entitlement of retired employees to medical reimbursement is concerned.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Union Of India &Amp; Others vs Asha Julka on 14 September, 2018

8. In fact it is apparent that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court noticed the plea taken by department therein that there is a clear 14 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) distinction between retired and the serving employees whose perks cannot be equated on the ground of any legitimate principle or any touch stone of law. He has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in cases titled as 'CONFEDERATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS' reported as 2006(4) SCT 128, 'STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA' reported as 1998(1) SCT 716 and 'UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. S.K.SAIGAL AND OTHERS' reported as 2007(1) SCT 286. After noticing the history of cases on the issue, the Court has held "We are thus of the opinion that given the judicial finality accorded in an identical petition which is not even remotely deviant from the present one, there is no reason for us not to take a similar view. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not in any way enhance their case. It is pertinent to mention here that we are dealing with the cases of persons who have retired and are in dire need of medical attention in their old age. It is also an accepted fact by the petitioners themselves that CGHS facilities are not available in most of the areas where the respondents reside including an important town like Ambala. If that be so, then the observations extracted above would be attracted to the present cases in all ferocity." In fact, the Hon‟ble High Court also relied upon decision of Hon‟ble H.P. High Court in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS SHANKAR LAL SHARMA' reported as 2016(1) SCT 413, in which it was held that "Note 2 appended to Rule 1 is read down to extend the benefit of CS (MA) Rules, 1944 to retired Government officials residing in non-CGHS areas to save it from unconstitutionality and 15 (RA No. 060/00040/2018 & etc.) to make it workable". Despite, this the respondents did not woke up and kept on placing reliance on said decision to reject the claim of the pensioners / retirees. The finding of this Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by the Hon‟ble High Court that any instructions, clarification of 2004 or the redundant rules, framed before enforcement of Constitution, are illegal, inoperative and deserve to be "ignored". In other words, these rules have not been quashed by the Tribunal. These are only to be ignored by the respondents. The Bench has only quashed the impugned orders. The declaration of rule as inoperative does not mean, that the same stands deleted from the statute book. If that makes the respondents happy, it can be kept therein as an ornament only in so far as the entitlement of retired employees to medical reimbursement is concerned.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next