Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Corp. Mithilesh Kumar @Mithilesh Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 November, 2010

Ajit Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 26 February, 2020

In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore, Smt. K. Ponnamma and Jaipal Singh (supra), State of U.P. & others Vs. Mahindra Nath Tiwari {2010 (2) SCC 252}, Corp. Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Singh Vs. Union of India & others {2010(13) Scale 98}, State Bank of India & another Vs. Mohammed Abdul Rahim {2013 (11) SCC 67}, Civil Appeal No.3339 of 2019, titled as 'Raj Narain Vs. Union of India & others, decided on 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2020 02:53:03 ::: (5) RSA No.5630 of 2014 01.04.2019.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A G Masih - Full Document

R B Patel vs Pachchim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. & Ors on 7 January, 2014

petitioners in service  and  did  not grant any benefits  like back wages  and   other   consequential   benefits     since   none   of   the   petitioners   have  worked for the Board. He had relied upon several decisions  and would  submit   that   in   absence   of   no   fault   on   the   part   of   the   employer,   the  principle of "no work no pay" would be applicable and, therefore,   the  Board has rightly refused to give them any benefits the period for which  they were absent. He would submit that the decisions cited by learned  Advocate  for the  petitioners would not be applicable, particularly,   in  absence   of   any   specific   Rule   or   Circular   issued   by   the   Board   about  dealing with the suspended or dismissed or removed employee in case of  his acquittal  by a competent court.  He has  placed heavy reliance  on  the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of   Virender Kumar, G.M.,  Northern Railways vs. Avinash Chandra  Chadha, as reported at  AIR  1991 SC 958; in the case of  A.P.S.R.T.C. & Anr. vs. S. Narsagoud,   as  reported  in  2003­I­LLJ   286;     in   the   case   of    Ranchhodji   Chaturji  Thakore   vs.   Superintendent   Engineer,   Gujarat   Electricity   Board,  Himmatnagar (Gujarat) & Anr., as reported in AIR 1997 SC, 1802;  in  the case of  Union of India   & Ors. vs. Jaipal Singh, as reported in  (2004) 1 SCC 121;  in the case of   Baldev Singh vs. Union of India &  Ors., as reported in  (2005)  8  SCC  747;  in the case of  Banshi Dhar  Page 11 of 32 C/SCA/4098/2008 CAV JUDGEMNT vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., as reported at  (2007) 1 SCC 324 and in  the   case   of  Corp.   Mithilesh   Kumar   @  Mithilesh  Singh  vs.   Union   of  India,  as reported at 2010 (13)  Scale, 98.  By relying upon the above  referred   decisions,   Mr.   Pandya   would   submit   that,   ordinarily,   an  employee would be entitled for such  back wages, if, he had worked on  that post and not in his  absentia.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A J Desai - Full Document

Ram Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 29 July, 2016

In Corp. Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Singh vs. Union of India & ors., 2010(13) Scale 98, the employee was working as Combatant 10 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 10-09-2016 20:35:11 ::: CWP No.22658 of 2014 11 Member of Indian Air Force. He was convicted in a criminal case and was awarded sentence of life imprisonment by the trial Court. Consequently, he was removed from service by the Chief of Air Staff. He filed an appeal against his conviction and was acquitted by the High Court. On his representation, he was reinstated in service w.e.f. 09.04.1994 but without backwages. Thereafter he claimed backwages. It was held that merely because there has been an acquittal, does not automatically entitle the employee to get the consequential benefits and appeal filed by him was dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - D Chaudhary - Full Document

Dilbagh Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 24 August, 2015

7. After having bestowed our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions of the parties in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaipal Singh's case (supra), Mithilesh Kumar's case (supra), and Mohammed Abdul Rahim's case (supra), and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Bijendra Singh's case (supra), we have found that the Page 7 of 8 OA 1800/15 Dilbagh Singh v. DTC & anr.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next