Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)
S.Rajendran vs The Secretary on 5 March, 2018 cites

Pradip Chandra Parija And Ors vs Pramod Chandra Patanaik And Ors on 4 December, 2001

In the context, we may fruitfully note what has been stated in Pradip Chandra Parija and others v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik and others [JT (2002) 5 SCC 23]. In the said case, the Constitution Bench was dealing with a situation where the two-Judge Bench disagreeing with the three-Judge Bench decision directed the matter to be placed before a larger Bench of five Judges of this Court. In that scenario, the Constitution Bench stated:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 257 - Full Document

Gujarat Agricultural University vs Rathod Labhu Bechar & Ors on 18 January, 2001

1992 SCC (L&S) 825 : (1992) 21 ATC 403 : (1992) 3 SCR 826] , Jacob [Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority, (1991) 1 SCC 28 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 25 : (1991) 15 ATC 697] and Gujarat Agricultural University [Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar, (2001) 3 SCC 574 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 613] and the like, have given rise to an expectation in them that their services would also be regularised. The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision- maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 283 - A P Misra - Full Document
1