Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.54 seconds)
Meghmathi Natvargiri Mansukhgiri vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 29 November, 2021 cites

K.C. Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 July, 1997

1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from ei- ther laches and delays or acquiescence."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 483 - Full Document

Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... vs D.V. Anil Kumar on 10 June, 2003

(4) The petitioner was engaged on contractual basis on 09.02.2002. Some of the similarly situated employees from other divisions approached the Supreme Court of India by filing Civil Application No.953 of 2005 to Civil Application No. 968 of 2005, in the case of LIC of India Vs. Shri D. V. Anilkumar and Ors., and the Apex Court vide its order dated 18.01.2011, directed the respondent to hold one time limited written examination for recruiting temporary workers in Class-IV category, who have worked for more than 5 years with the respondent and also who possess minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed at the relevant point of time. On the basis of the aforesaid order of the Apex Court, the respondent had issued a Notification dated 25.05.2011. As per the Page 2 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:18:29 IST 2022 C/SCA/16058/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021 notification, as a one time measure, the respondent was conducted a written examination on 26.06.2011 in vernacular language with limited syllabus, to recruit temporary workers under Class-IV category, who have worked with the respondent for more than 5 years as on 18.01.2011 and who possessed minimum eligible qualifications and age at the relevant time, subject to getting short listed in the exam and interview.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 3 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014

C/SCA/16058/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021 (15) In the present case, the manner and method in which the respondent has implemented the order of the Apex Court was highly deprecated and condemned by this Court, as noticed hereinabove. The methodology or policy or calculation adopted by the respondent authority in multiplying 365 days with 5 years before the cut-off date of 18.01.2011, has been set aside by this Court. This Court has even passed strictures against the respondent in misinterpreting the direction issued by the Apex Court. Though the directions which are issued by this Court in the judgment and order dated 29.06.2018 are in favour of those petitioners, it was obligatory upon the respondent authorities to implement the judgement of this Court in those cases also wherein the employees have not been permitted to take the examination in view of the illegal and arbitrary method adopted by the respondent-LIC. It was the solemn duty of the respondent-LIC to apprise this Court that there were other employees, who were also ousted by their illegal action and they are also entitled to the same relief. When the policy or the procedure adopted by the respondent in interpreting the order of the Apex Court is held to be illegal, then the judgment of this Court in favour of few cannot be made applicable to only those employees who had approached earlier. The petitioner, who is the victim of an illegal interpretation of the order of the Supreme Court, cannot be refused the identical Page 11 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:18:29 IST 2022 C/SCA/16058/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021 relief which is granted in favour of his colleagues. When a specific direction was issued by this Court vide dated order dated 29.06.2018 to hold the examination, and the examination was also held pursuant to such directions, then it was the responsibility of the respondent to consider all the applications of those candidates who were debarred by them on same illegality, and they should have been allowed to undertake the examination. Thus, the reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) will not come to the rescue of the respondent. The petitioner in his application dated 30.05.2011, filed for appearing in the examination in Column No.5 has categorically mentioned that he has completed 8 years, 11 months and 09 days from 09.02.2002 before the cut-off date. Thus, the respondent should have allowed the petitioner to appear in subsequent examination, after the judgment and order dated 29.06.2018 passed by this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1005 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1