Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
K.Muthuraj vs Indian Overseas Bank on 28 January, 2014 cites

Dev Dutt vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2008

"8.Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark "very good" is required for being considered for promotion, admittedly the entry of "good" was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of "good" should have been communicated to him as he was having "very good" in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the annual confidential report of a public servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences because it may affect his chances of promotion or getting other benefits. Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated in the abovereferred decision (Dev Dutt case (2008) 8 SCC (L&S) 771: (2008) 7 Scale 403, SCC p.738, para 41) relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the entries "good" if at all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The Respondent has no case that the appellant had ever been informed of the nature of the grading given to him."
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1116 - M Katju - Full Document

Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 October, 2008

In this regard, the promotion policy adhered to by the First Respondent/Bank for the Years 2009, 2010 and 2011 in so far as it has not communicated the APAR marks to the Petitioners and not followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Others and reiterated in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and Others, (2009) 16 SCC 146 and has resulted in miscarriage of justice in so far as the Petitioners are concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 382 - Full Document

Sukhdev Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 April, 2013

20.It cannot be out of place for this Court to make a pertinent mention that an adverse entry alone should be communicated to an employee. If the communication of every entry in APAR/ACR is done quite in tune, tenor and spirit of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in SUKHDEV SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2013) 9 SUPREME COURT CASES AT PAGE 566, (Three-Judges Bench), then, it will not only bring transparency in the scrutiny of remarks or recording the remarks pertaining to certain employees. If these practices are resorted to, then, it will satisfy the requirement of adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice. It is true that the Principles of Natural Justice are not edicts of a statute. To put it precisely, there are no set of straight jacket non-humane formula viz., in respect of principles of natural justice, it may be undisputed one or unqualifying one. It is needless for this Court to point out that in every executive/administrative action adherence to the principles of natural justice are to be considered as sacrosanct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 251 - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs S.K. Goel & Ors on 12 February, 2007

In the light of the Orders issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP (Civil) No.15770/2009, Union of India Vs. A.K.Goel & Ors., all Ministries/Departments are advised that wherever Petitioners have been filed in the Courts to grant relief on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt case, the latest Orders of the Supreme Court in A.K.Goel case may brought to the notice of this Court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 146 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Satya Narain Shukla vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2006

When the petitions in SLP (Civil) No.15770/2009, now converted to Appeal Civil No.2872 of 2010 (Union of India v. A.K.Goel & Ors.) were called for hearing, the Supreme Court has taken note of the apparent conflict between the decision of the Hon'ble Court in Dev Dutt case on one hand and the judgments of Supreme Court in Satya Narain Shukla Vs. UOI 2006 (9) SCC 69 and K.M.Mishra v. Central Bank of India & Ors. 2008 (9) SCC 120 on the other hand and by their Order dated 29.03.2010, the Hon'ble Court has referred these appeals to a Larger Bench (copy attached).
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 96 - Full Document

K.M.Mishra vs Central Bank Of India & Ors on 16 September, 2008

When the petitions in SLP (Civil) No.15770/2009, now converted to Appeal Civil No.2872 of 2010 (Union of India v. A.K.Goel & Ors.) were called for hearing, the Supreme Court has taken note of the apparent conflict between the decision of the Hon'ble Court in Dev Dutt case on one hand and the judgments of Supreme Court in Satya Narain Shukla Vs. UOI 2006 (9) SCC 69 and K.M.Mishra v. Central Bank of India & Ors. 2008 (9) SCC 120 on the other hand and by their Order dated 29.03.2010, the Hon'ble Court has referred these appeals to a Larger Bench (copy attached).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 78 - A Alam - Full Document
1