Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.31 seconds)

K.P. Periannan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 20 April, 1990

In the judgment of G.Periannan vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007 (3) CTC 806 this Court has already held that posts of Noon Meal Scheme are Civil Posts and they are entitled to take protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - S R Pandian - Full Document

The State Of Gujarat vs Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel on 18 February, 2022

21. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court on that aspect in the State of Gujarat and others vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel reported in (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187 and submitted that the Government cannot take advantage of their own wrong in not paying Dearness Allowance on pension when it was paid throughout their service. The relevant paragraph of the said order is extracted hereunder:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors on 20 March, 2001

“13. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported State of U.P. and others v. Chandraka Prakash Pandey and others, 2001 (4) SCC 78, considered similar issue as to the holder of civil post and in paragraph 10 held thus,— “10. The question as to when a person can be said to be holder of a civil post has been the subject-matter of consideration before this Court on numerous occasions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 131 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

State Of Assam & Ors vs Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta on 3 October, 1966

In the case of State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta a Constitution Bench of this Court was considering a case where a Mauzadar was appointed for collection of land revenue under the Mauzadari system prevailing in the 28/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:24:22 pm ) W.P.Nos.16606, 14895, 15221, 17319, 18418, 20086, 20174, 20175 and 22601 of 2018 Assam Valley whose primary duty was to collect land revenue and other Government revenues. He was working as Revenue Officer and ex officio Assistant Settlement Officer exercising delegated powers of the Government and the State had the power and right to select and appoint him inasmuch as power to suspend and dismiss. The Mauzadar was drawing not a regular salary but commission by way of a remuneration. The Court observed that there must be existence of relationship of master and servant between the State and its employees and such a relationship can be established by presence of all or some of the ingredients. After due consideration of the entire matter, the Court laid down the law as follows: (AIR pp. 886-87, paras 11-13)
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 216 - R S Bachawat - Full Document

Ch. Venkata Swamy vs Superintendent, Post Offices And Anr. on 6 November, 1956

14. Applying the above principles, laid down in the above cited decision and various other judgments relied on in the said judgment, to the facts of this case and having regard to the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Noon-meal Organiser in terms of the Government Order issued and the posting and transfer orders of the posts having been issued by the officials of the State and the salary of the petitioner having been paid from the State funds allocated under the budget allocation, I am of the firm view that the Noon-meal Organiser post is a civil post and therefore Noon-meal Organiser is entitled to have protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which clearly states that no person, who is a member of a civil service of the Union or a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been 31/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:24:22 pm ) W.P.Nos.16606, 14895, 15221, 17319, 18418, 20086, 20174, 20175 and 22601 of 2018 informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
Orissa High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next