Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.32 seconds)
Ramlal Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2026 cites

Dr. R.S. Sohane vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2019

24. The writ court has wrongly confined and denied the monetary benefits, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Sohane (supra) and Dr. Jacob Thudipara (Supra). The writ petitioners are entitled to get the salary for two years with all consequently benefit if already not paid to them. Hence, all the writ appeals filed by the writ petitioners are allowed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 70 - L N Rao - Full Document

New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs B.D. Singhal on 15 July, 2021

13. Lastly, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Another Vs. B.D. Singhal and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 466 , in which it is held "that whether the age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance the age of superannuation, the date from which the enhancement should be made falls within the realm of policy. The infirmity in the judgment lies in the fact that the High Court has trenched upon the realm of policy making and has assumed to itself jurisdiction over a matter, which lies in the domain of the executive."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 42 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Jacob Thudipara vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2022

24. The writ court has wrongly confined and denied the monetary benefits, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Sohane (supra) and Dr. Jacob Thudipara (Supra). The writ petitioners are entitled to get the salary for two years with all consequently benefit if already not paid to them. Hence, all the writ appeals filed by the writ petitioners are allowed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - M R Shah - Full Document

Dr. S.C. Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2017

6. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Jacob Thudipara v. Higher Education Deptt., Mantralaya Vallabh Bhawan' is hereby quashed and set aside, which was passed relying upon the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court in S.C. Jain v. State of M.P. (2017 SCC Online MP 1544), which has been subsequently set aside by this Court in R.S. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHRUTI JHA Signing time: 05-02- 2026 18:09:45 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8911 14 WA-2331-2024 Sohane v. State of M.P., (2019) 16 SCC 796. It is held that the appellant herein is entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation i.e. 65 years. He shall be entitled to all the consequential and monetary benefits including arrears of salaries, etc. as if, he would have been continued up to the age of 65 years. The arrears, etc. shall be paid to the appellant within a period of six weeks from today. However, considering the fact that there was a huge delay in preferring the appeal, which has been condoned by this Court, the appellant shall not be entitled to any interest on the pyrrears for the period between 9-5-2017 till the filing of the present appeal.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

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

The writ petitioners approached this Court, later on, claiming a similar benefit by way of writ petitions on the ground that the judgment passed by this Court on 12.01.2023 is a judgment in rem, then the benefit of a judgment to other similarly situated will be applicable as held by the Apex Court in the case of K. C. Sharma and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, [(1997) 6 SCC 724].
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 483 - Full Document

Dr. (Mrs.) Anuradha Jain vs Higher Education Department on 5 August, 2021

20. By placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of this Court allowed various writ appeals of similarly placed professors in the matter of Balkrishan Rathi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [(2021) SCC OnLine MP 3778]. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Apex Court by the State of M.P., vide order dated 08.04.2022, and the said SLP has been dismissed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 37 - S Paul - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 December, 2022

4. The Finance Department of the State of M.P. vide circular dated 27.04.2018 granted liberty to all the Corporations, local bodies, etc., to enhance the age of 60 to 62 years of their employees by amending the service & recruitment Rules, considering their financial conditions and need. The appellants approached this Court seeking their retirement at the age of 62 years and the monetary benefit as directed by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Soni Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No.1460/2020 dated 12.01.2023; Annexure R2/1). According to the respondents No.1/petitioner in W.A. No.238/2023, there is no requirement to take such decision as such to adopt separately the provision of the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 and to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years, as proviso to Clause 21 of Service Rules, 2010, categorically proclaims that the Rule enacted by the State Government will have overriding effect over the Service Rules, 2010.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - S A Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 Next