cites: 163549241 doctypes: judgments

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh Etc on 17 January, 1989

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 17.01.1989 in Civil Appeal Nos. 165-166 of 1989 in the matter of State of U.P. Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, reported in 1989 20 OA No. 1040/2025 AIR 997 has held that judicial review is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the decision itself, unless it is arbitrary or perverse. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 528 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs P.Gunasekaran on 3 November, 2014

12.1 Further, in judgment dated 03.11.2014 in Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723 the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that Courts/Tribunals cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with administrative decisions unless there is a patent illegality, perversity, or violation of principles of natural justice. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings as under:-

Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 856 - Full Document

Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993

In judgment dated 01.10.1993 in Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 in the matter of Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, reported in 22 OA No. 1040/2025 1993 (4) SCC 727 while dealing with the effect of non-supply of enquiry report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that relief is not automatic and depends on the facts of each case, including whether prejudice is caused.

Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

State Of Kerala & Ors vs E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai on 17 April, 2007

"We have considered the decisions cited on behalf of both the sides. So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the Court may grant sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard and fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also. However, so far as present case is concerned, as per directions given by the Court, petitioner's case was considered and it was found that persons junior to him were appointed and he was wrongly denied. Therefore, the petitioner was promoted from retrospective effect i.e. 15.9.1961 but he was not paid the benefit of promotion in terms of arrears of salary. Therefore, he approached the Court and learned Single Judge did not give him the monetary benefit of the promotional post from retrospective effect in terms of arrears of salary. In the review application, the benefit was given from the date he filed O.P. 23 OA No. 1040/2025 No. 585 of 1975 i.e. 15.6.1972. This appears to be reasonable. The petitioner did not approach the Court for the back wages from 15.9.1961 but he filed a petition dated 15.6.1972 and the Court granted the benefit from the date of filing of the petition before the Court i.e. 15.6.1972. The incumbent in the meanwhile has retired on 31.7.1980. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there is no ground to interfere in it.

Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 241 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 16 December, 2016

ix. That the applicant continuously approached the respondent authorities, but no heed was paid to his genuine requests. He then sent a legal notice to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 18.07.2018 through registered post, seeking release of all service benefits with admissible allowances and pay for the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' relevant period, recalculation of service dues including pension and gratuity, along with arrears, interest @ 18%, and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of notice within one month. x. That the respondent authorities failed to take any action on the said notice even after lapse of more than two months, 9 OA No. 1040/2025 whereupon the applicant filed O.A. No. 959 of 2018 titled Rakesh Kumar Sinha Vs. Union of India & Ors., which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2023, directing the competent authority to decide the legal notice as well as the O.A. as a comprehensive representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 45 days.

Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - H Gupta - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Sinha vs Union Of India on 10 July, 2023

"a. To quashed the impugned undated order, which is passed in compliance of the order dated 20.10.2023 passed in OA No. 959/2018 Rakesh Kumar Sinha Vs. Union of India and other by which the claim of the petitioner rejected without considering actual fact of the matter, after calling entire record from the respondents.

Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Umesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 January, 2019

xix. That the act of the respondents is against the principles of natural justice and amounts to infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 , 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and is also contrary to Section 23 of the Contract Act. xx. That in Umesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand, the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand held that if an employee is terminated without following due procedure of law, or if such termination is declared illegal, he is entitled Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' to all consequential benefits. Similar views have been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts that an illegally terminated employee is entitled to benefits as if the termination never occurred.