Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.78 seconds)
Ramesh Chandra Chaubey & Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Karmik Lko & ... on 16 July, 2019
cites
State Of U.P.& Anr vs Santosh Kumar Mishra & Anr on 3 August, 2010
12. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Chandra and others (Supra), was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra and another (Supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the decision, which was taken to deprive the private respondents from being appointed could now be discarded once again to their disadvantage to prevent them from being appointed introducing the concept of merit selection at a later stage. The same may be introduced after the private respondents and those similarly situated persons have been accommodated.
K.C. Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 July, 1997
16. On perusal of the judgment in the case of K.C. Sharma and others Vs. Union of India and others (Supra), the fact of the case was that certain employees were employed as Guards in the Northern Railway and they retired as Guards during the period 1980 to 1988. They felt aggrieved by notification dated 05.12.1988, wherein Rule 2544 of Indian Railways Establishment Code was amended and for the purpose of calculation of average emoluments the maximum limit in respect of running allowances was reduced from 75% to 45% in respect of period from 01.01.1973 to 31.03.1979 and 55% for the period from 01.04.1979 onwards.
Inder Pal Yadav And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors Etc on 18 April, 1985
In the case of Inder Pal Yadav and others Vs. Union of India and others (Supra), the controversy under consideration was that Project Casual Labours after putting continuous service for years on the end to wit ranging from 1974 till 1983, yet their services were terminated with impunity under the specious plea that the project on which they were employed has been wound up on its completion and their services were no more needed.
New Delhi Municipal Council vs Pan Singh & Ors on 8 March, 2007
Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006
After such a long time, therefore, the Writ Petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy and others [(2004) 1 SCC 347], Chairman, U.P. jal Nigam & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and anr.[2006 (12) SCALE 347] and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director and Another v. K. Thangappan and Another [(2006) 4 SCC 322]."
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008
State Of U.P. vs Mohammad Usman & Ors. on 29 October, 2015
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 8 August 2014 in a batch of special appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh (Special Appeal Defective No.110 of 2012 :State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Mohd. Usman Ansari) and connected cases). In that batch of cases, the learned Single Judge had granted the benefit of the decision in Pratap Narain Pandey in various writ petitions. In fact, the judgment of the Division Bench would indicate that several of those writ petitions had been filed as far back as in 1991 (Writ Petition No.4587 (S/S) of 1991, Writ Petition No.6472 (S/S) of 1991 and Writ Petition No.3764 (S/S) of 1991) which had been decided by the learned Single Judges on 28 October 2010, 12 May 2010 and 12 May 2010 respectively. Those petitioners had again been vigilant enough to pursue their rights and the writ petitions had remained pending before this Court. Undoubtedly, one of those writ petitions in the batch (Writ Petition No.1595 (S/S) of 2008) had been dismissed on 26 March 2008 by a learned Single Judge on the ground of laches and the special appeal which had been filed by the State (Special Appeal No.311 of 2008) was disposed of by holding that the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of laches was erroneous in view of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the case was identical to Pratap Narain Pandey which had attained finality and that the benefit had been granted to other similarly situated persons. The case proceeded entirely on a concession which was made and it would appear that no effort was made on the part of the State even to submit before the Division Bench that there was a factual difference between the case at hand and in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey. The judgment of the Division Bench does not lay down the principle that a writ petition which had been filed without any cogent explanation for a delay, as in the present case, must still be entertained merely on the ground of the decision in Pratap Narain Pandey. Hence, the judgment of the Division Bench will not assist the case of the respondent."