cites: 120921569

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Jagdish Singh And Ors. on 26 April, 1988

8. The special appeal no. 303 of 2009 (State of UP and others vs. Jagdish Singh and others) challenging the aforesaid judgement was dismissed vide order dated 7.5.2009. Against the aforesaid judgement, Special Leave Petition No. 18381 of 2009 was filed by the State of UP, which too was dismissed in limine vide order dated 20.9.2010.

Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Article 370 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 2 - Cited by 513

Jaswant Singh & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 29 August, 1979

"6. A work-charged establishment as pointed out by this Court in Jaswant Singh v. Union of India broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the wages and allowances of the staff, fare chargeable to "works". The pay and allowances of employees who are borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated cost of the works. The work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. Thus a work-charged establishment is materially and qualitatively different from a regular establishment.

Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 111 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 10 - Cited by 33697

State Of Rajasthan vs Kunji Raman With Kunji Raman Vs. State Of ... on 17 December, 1996

Jaswant Singh and the principles laid down therein came to be reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Kunji Raman6. Their Lordships held:

Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 82 - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011

The relevant paragraphs 52, 53 and 54 of Mamata Mohanti (supra) are quoted as under:

Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 995 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal & Anr vs Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors on 23 August, 2013

In State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, Hon'ble Apex Court has rejected the claim of promotion on the ground of delay and has clearly held that "delay defeats equity." This concept of equity applies in this case also.

Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 387 - D Misra - Full Document

C.Jacob vs Director Of Geology & ... on 3 October, 2008

In C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Another, (2008) 10 SCC 115, in paragraphs 10, 11 and 14 following observations have been made:

Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 493 - Full Document

Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr vs Gulshan Lal And Ors on 6 May, 2009

In Haryana State Electricity Board and Another vs. Gulshan Lal and Others, (2009) 12 SCC 231, the Hon'ble Apex Court rejected the claim based on parity as juniors have been promoted and may have also getting a higher pay-scale. The relevant paragraphs no. 42 to 47 are quoted as under:

Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 49 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Digambar on 12 May, 1995

43. It may be true that this Court has dismissed the special leave petition on the ground of delay. The same, however, does not preclude us from considering the matter on merit. We would therefor assume that even no appeal was filed. Even in such a situation, this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683 considered the following contention:

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 567 - N Venkatachala - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results

Article 370 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]