Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 81 (1.84 seconds)
Documents citing Sham Sunder vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 July, 1968

Ashok Dhariwal vs University Of Jodhpur on 28 August, 1992

15. I may here state that the respondent was entitled to make an exparte enquiry in accordance with the various clauses of the appendix B if the petitioner chose not to participate in such an enquiry and then the action of the respondent would have been wholly unassailable. A Division Bench ruling of this Court is Shyam Sunder Sharma v. Union of India 1964 RLW 613 is a direct authority for the proposition. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the then counsel for the respondent had opined that no enquiry was required in the circumstances of the case and an enquiry could not have served any useful purpose. In my opinion, if the respondent acted on such an erroneous advice and did not hold any enquiry in the matter, then they must thank themselves and their learned the then advocate who tendered such an opinion.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mr. X, Indian Inhabitant vs Chairman, State Level Police ... on 22 December, 2005

29. What Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits is "class legislation" and not "classification for purpose of legislation". If the Executive reasonably classifies persons so as to bring them under a well-defined class, it is not open to challenge on the ground of denial of equal treatment that the law does not apply to other persons. Equality of opportunity in matters of employment under Article 16(1) means equality as between members of the same class of employees and not equality between members of separate, independent classes. (All India Station Masters' and Assistant Station Masters' Association v. General Manager Central Railways ; Sham Sunder v. Union of India ).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Air India Etc. Etc vs Nergesh Meerza & Ors. Etc. Etc on 28 August, 1981

"As we have stated already, the two Services started as independent services. The qualifications prescribed for entry into each were different, the method of recruitment and the machinery for the same were also different and the general qualifications possessed by and large by the members of each class being different, they started as two distinct classes. If the government order of September 27, 1957, did not integrate them into a single service, it would follow that 460 the two remained as they started as two distinct services. If they were distinct services. There was no question of inter se seniority between members of the two services nor of any comparison between the two in the matter of promotion for founding an argument based upon Art. 14 or Art. 16(1). They started dissimilarly and they continued dissimilarly and any dissimilarly in their treatment would not be a denial of equal opportunity for it is common ground that within each group there is no denial of that freedom guaranteed by the two Articles. The foundation therefore, of the judgment of the learned Judges of tile High Court that the impugned rules created two classes out of what was formerly a single class and introduced elements of discrimination between the two, has no factual basis if, as we hold, the order of September 27, 1957, did not effectuate a complete integration of the two Services. On this view it would follow that the impugned rules cannot be struck down as violative of the constitution.' (Emphasis supplied) The same dictum was followed by this Court in a later case-Sham Sunder v. Union of India and ors.(l)-where it was pointed out that Art. 16(1) would be attracted only if there is a breach of equality between members of the same class of employees and Art. 14 did not contemplate equality between members of separate or independent classes. In this connection Bachawat, J. held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 357 - S M Ali - Full Document

Rahul Goswami vs Railway Electrification (Core) on 6 February, 2025

7. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the instruction dated 14.4.2003 specifies that the post of Bungalow Khalasi exists solely to assist the concerned officer in discharging official duties. The subjective satisfaction of his working is the criteria for continuing with the job of the officer to whom he is attached. The subjective satisfaction of the officer regarding the applicant's performance is the determining factor for the applicant's continuation. This implies that the decision to terminate the applicant does not necessarily require a formal inquiry. It is further argued that grant of temporary status to the applicant will not confer any right to the applicant to claim the benefit of the provision as applicable to the Govt. servant or casual labour. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by CAT Principal Bench in O.A. No. 2456/2005 (Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. UOI and others) decided on 2.8.2006, wherein in para 12, it has been held that Full Bench in the case of Shyam Sunder Vs. Union of India and others decided on 12.2.1999 has decided that "after acquisition of temporary status by a Bungalow Peon/ Khalasi, his/her services can be terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work without holding a departmental enquiry, as discussed in paragraph 14,15 and 16 of the order."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lakhvindar Singh vs Union Of India on 26 April, 2025

MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4 Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by CAT Principal Bench in O.A. No. 2456/2005 (Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. UOI and others) decided on 2.8.2006, wherein in para 12, it has been held that Full Bench in the case of Shyam Sunder Vs. Union of India and others decided on 12.2.1999 has decided that "after acquisition of temporary status by a Bungalow Peon/ Khalasi, his/her services can be terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory work without holding a departmental enquiry, as discussed in paragraph 14,15 and 16 of the order."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next