Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)
Niranjan Lal & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 November, 2012 cites

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

26. In the final analysis, prayer of petitioners seeking quashing of circulars of 4th February, 2003, 20th November, 2003 and 1st January, 2004 and the tender notice is found to be infructuous as from the year 2010 the catering service of respondents stands reverted back to Indian Railways. The prayer of petitioners for regularizing them as commission vendors stands declined in view of the afore-noted dictum of the Apex Court in Uma Devi (Supra). However, these petitions succeed only to the extent of directing Respondents to consider the case of eligible petitioners for being absorbed against vacant posts in 'Group C', provided such eligible petitioners, i.e., who have not crossed the age of 59 years, seek absorption within two weeks from today and the respondents are directed to consider the case of such petitioners with W.P.(C) No. 5175/1998 & connected petitions Page 15 of 16 expedition, i.e., within twelve weeks or so. Needless to say, if absorption on compassionate basis is sought by any of the eligible petitioners in terms of Respondents' Circulars of 1st December, 2005 and 7th June, 2007, the same would be considered in terms of aforesaid Circulars.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1670 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

T.I. Madhavan, Gen. Secy., All India ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 September, 1987

14. To assert that petitioners have no fundamental right to be absorbed in Railway Catering Service and the scheme to absorb them is out of benevolence shown by the Apex Court in W.P. No. 6804 of 1982, Sital Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India, rendered on 13th December, 1983 and T.I. Madhawan vs. Union of India & Ors., 1987 (5) SLR 572 and on absorption, an employee does not have right to a particular grade or post, reliance is placed by respondents' counsel upon decisions in P.B. Roy vs. Union of India (1972) 3 SCC 432; State of M.P. and Ors vs. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, 1994 Supp.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 45 - A P Sen - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others vs Ramesh Kumar Sharma on 7 January, 1993

14. To assert that petitioners have no fundamental right to be absorbed in Railway Catering Service and the scheme to absorb them is out of benevolence shown by the Apex Court in W.P. No. 6804 of 1982, Sital Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India, rendered on 13th December, 1983 and T.I. Madhawan vs. Union of India & Ors., 1987 (5) SLR 572 and on absorption, an employee does not have right to a particular grade or post, reliance is placed by respondents' counsel upon decisions in P.B. Roy vs. Union of India (1972) 3 SCC 432; State of M.P. and Ors vs. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, 1994 Supp.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

B.P. Singhal vs Union Of India & Anr on 7 May, 2010

20. The respective stand taken by both the sides, the material on record and the decisions cited have to be considered while keeping in view that there is no challenge to the policy decision of 1st December, 2005 providing for age of retirement as 60 years for those commission vendors who opt for absorption in the Railway Catering Service, as retirement age of Indian Railways staff is 60 years. The consistent stand of respondents right from the beginning is that in view W.P.(C) No. 5175/1998 & connected petitions Page 11 of 16 of the directions issued by Apex Court in Sital Singh (Supra), respondents are willing to absorb commission bearers/vendors but as per the applicable Rules and Regulations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 151 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

P.B. Roy vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 11 February, 1972

14. To assert that petitioners have no fundamental right to be absorbed in Railway Catering Service and the scheme to absorb them is out of benevolence shown by the Apex Court in W.P. No. 6804 of 1982, Sital Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India, rendered on 13th December, 1983 and T.I. Madhawan vs. Union of India & Ors., 1987 (5) SLR 572 and on absorption, an employee does not have right to a particular grade or post, reliance is placed by respondents' counsel upon decisions in P.B. Roy vs. Union of India (1972) 3 SCC 432; State of M.P. and Ors vs. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, 1994 Supp.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 30 - M H Beg - Full Document
1