Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Dr B K Dey vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 14 May, 2018 cites

State Of Karnataka & Anr vs M/S. Hansa Corporation on 25 September, 1980

43. The respondent in its wisdom chose to notify circular dated 19.07.2016 followed by statutory amendment dated 22.03.2017. It cannot be disputed that this is a policy decision of the government. Even though, there are prima facie observations that the policy does not carry any rationale for depriving the doctors who attain the age of 62 years from discharging their administrative functions, none the less, the Courts are to be reluctant in interfering in the policy matters. It is not in dispute that the central government had the legislative competence to amend the Fundamental Rules. Once, the legislative competence is conceded, there is a presumption of constitutionality of a statute. Even though, there are some deficiencies, interference in the statutory provisions is not desired.........." After considering the decision in State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Hansa Corporation (1980) 4 SCC 697 and Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and Others (2008) 5 SCC 33, it was held that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 73 - D A Desai - Full Document

Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat & Ors on 14 March, 2008

43. The respondent in its wisdom chose to notify circular dated 19.07.2016 followed by statutory amendment dated 22.03.2017. It cannot be disputed that this is a policy decision of the government. Even though, there are prima facie observations that the policy does not carry any rationale for depriving the doctors who attain the age of 62 years from discharging their administrative functions, none the less, the Courts are to be reluctant in interfering in the policy matters. It is not in dispute that the central government had the legislative competence to amend the Fundamental Rules. Once, the legislative competence is conceded, there is a presumption of constitutionality of a statute. Even though, there are some deficiencies, interference in the statutory provisions is not desired.........." After considering the decision in State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Hansa Corporation (1980) 4 SCC 697 and Hinsa Virodhak Sangh vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and Others (2008) 5 SCC 33, it was held that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 109 - M Katju - Full Document

Jagdish Prasad vs The Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2011

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 11.04.2018 of the applicant No.1 keeping in view the decision of this Tribunal in Dr. Jagdish Prasad Vs. Union of India and Others in OA No.494/2017 decided on 05.04.2018 and to pass appropriate speaking and reasoned orders in accordance with law, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the respondents shall maintain status quo, qua the applicant No.1, obtaining as on the 15 OA No.1819/2018 date of issuance of Annexure A-1 order dated 05.05.2018. No costs.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 26 - Cited by 7 - A Mishra - Full Document
1