Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)
Triveni Shankar Saxena vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 December, 1991 cites

Paresh Chandra Nandi vs Controller Of Stores, N.F. Railway, ... on 7 December, 1970

25. A learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in M.P. Tewari v. Union of India 1974, A.L.J. 427 following the dictum laid down in the above Paresh Chandra's case and distinguishing the decision of this Court in P.L. Dhingra v. Union of India has observed that "a person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier", with which view we are in agreement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957

25. A learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in M.P. Tewari v. Union of India 1974, A.L.J. 427 following the dictum laid down in the above Paresh Chandra's case and distinguishing the decision of this Court in P.L. Dhingra v. Union of India has observed that "a person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier", with which view we are in agreement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 809 - Full Document

Om Prakash Goel vs Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development ... on 6 May, 1991

31. We also sent for the original Character Roll of the appellant and waded through it carefully and found several adverse entries about the unsatisfactory performance of his work throughout. The order of termination dated 16.10.1971 shows that the appellant at the relevant time was holding the post of temporary Assistant Consolidation Officer and that his services were no more required and that he was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. As it is not the case of the appellant that his services alone were terminated whilst some of his juniors have been retained in service, the dictum laid down in Om Prakash Goel v. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. to which we were parties and on which reliance was placed by the appellant has no application to the facts of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 106 - S R Pandian - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr vs Kaushal Kishore Shukla on 11 January, 1991

32. However, this Court has made it clear that if the competent authority decides to take punitive action, it may do so by holding a formal inquiry by framing charges and giving an opportunity to the Government servant in accordance with the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution. In the instant case, as we have already noticed supra, the termination is not a punitive action. According to the State of U.P. the services of the appellant were terminated as per the rules on account of his unsuitability by giving him one month's salary, which statement is not challenged before us. Therefore, we hold that the dictum laid down in the above Kaushal Kishore Shukla's case will squarely apply to the facts of the present case and that the order of termination (simpliciter) cannot be challenged.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 357 - K N Singh - Full Document
1