Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.58 seconds)
Radhey Shyam Patel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2023 cites

Ramesh Prasad Agnihotri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2020

Explanation: For the purpose of this clause, judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be pending, if a complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, has Signature Not Verified SAN been made or filed in a criminal proceedings;â€​ Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2023.05.04 19:57:21 IST Thus, it is evident that FR56 nowhere deals with any category or 18 any class of employees who can be termed as temporary, officiating or permanent and this aspect was probably not brought to the notice of a coordinate Bench which decided W.P. No.13115/2019 (Ramesh Prasad Agnihotri Vs. State of M.P. and others) on 3.8.2021.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sushil Pachouri on 24 May, 2018

The said aspect has been considered by a Division Bench of Gwalior High 4 Court in Review Petition No.264/2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh versus Rajendra Kumar Jain) and connected review petitions decided on 24.5.2018 wherein it is held that a daily wager, who is declared permanent by way of classification by the employer, merely on completion of 240 days of service as daily wager without any judicial intervention, is entitled to minimum of regular pay scale without increment and will not confer any other benefit to the petitioner.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 149 - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Anr vs M. J. Siddiqui And Ors on 31 March, 1980

In case of State of U.P. And Anr. Vs. M.J. Siddiqui and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1098, it is held that in order to determine the nature of the appointment, one has to look to the heart and substance of the matter, the surrounding circumstances, the mode, the manner and the terms of appointment and other relevant factors. As per fundamental rule 9(4), in a Government service there are different cadres. Normally cadre means the strength of a service or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. Each of these cadres consists of a number of posts. These posts may be permanent or temporary. A permanent post is one which is sanctioned without limit of time. A temporary post denotes one which is sanctioned for a limited time and is very often outside the cadre.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 58 - S M Ali - Full Document

Ram Naresh Rawat vs Sri Ashwini Ray And Ors on 15 December, 2016

When tested on the touchstone of said principles and also on the touchstone of law laid down in the case of Jeewaram (supra) so also the law laid down in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat (supra), I am of the opinion that since judgments/orders of coordinate Benches have not taken into consideration the aforesaid aspects of existing legal provisions as contained in FR56 so also the interpretation of statutes, the petitioner is not entitled to enhanced age of superannuation in terms of M.P. Shashikiya Sewak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2018, as he is not a holder of a post so to classify him as a Govt. Servant whose pay is debitable to civil estimates in India. There is also no mention in the circular dated 7.10.2016 or in the order of permanent classification that provisions of FR will be applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1867 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Mathura Prasad Yadav vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2017

Division Bench of this Court affirmed the decision of the Single Judge in case o f Mathura Prasad Yadav Vs. Secretary, State of M.P., reported in 2010(3) M.P.L.J. 323 inasmuch as a daily wager is not entitled to claim Signature Not Verified SAN particular age limit for continuance in service and the Department or the Govt. is Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH at liberty to fix the age of a daily wager to continue in service.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Chandra Prakash Tiwari And Ors vs Shakuntala Shukla And Ors on 9 May, 2002

In view of such facts when there are no words like temporary, officiating or permanent in FR56 then no meaning can be supplied to such rule so to fill the lacuna. Looking to the fact that Govt. Circular dated 7.10.2016 neither provides for treating daily wagers for whom said circular has been issued to be members of the work charged and contingency paid establishment nor treats them to be regular employees holding a post so to make them Govt. Servant then merely because FR3 carves out an exception in regard to Govt. Servants whose conditions of service are governed by Army or Marine Regulations will not mean that petitioner shall be covered by FR2 unless it is shown that he is a Govt. Servant whose pay is debitable to civil estimates in India/ State. It is Signature Not Verified SAN equally true as has been held in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs. Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Shakuntala Shukla, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2322 that a statutory provision Date: 2023.05.04 19:57:21 IST covering particular field cannot be held repealed by general provision enacted 22 later. Thus, a Govt. Circular dated 7.10.2016 shall not supersede the statutory provisions contained in fundamental rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 400 - U C Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 Next