Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.28 seconds)
Hemant Shesh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 3 July, 2006 cites

J.C. Yadav & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 February, 1990

43. As a matter of fact, as observed in Ashok Kumar Uppal v. State of J & K , under service jurisprudence as also the administrative law, the power of relaxation has "necessarily to be conceded" to the employer particularly the State Government or the Central Government who have to deal with hundreds of employees working under them in different departments but as held in J.C. Yadav v. State of Haryana (supra) - as words of caveat - the power of relaxation is to be exercised to meet "particular event, situation or circumstances".
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 105 - K N Singh - Full Document

P.N. Premachandran vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 6 November, 2003

In P.N. Premchandran v. State of Kerala (supra), the dispute related to inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees on account of retrospective promotion. It was held that direct recruits inducted subsequent to the temporary promotions cannot challenge the retrospective regularization of the temporary promotions and claim seniority over the promotees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 68 - S B Sinha - Full Document

R. P. Khanna & Ors vs S.A.F. Abbas & Ors. Etc on 22 February, 1972

In the case of R.P. Khanna v. S.A.F. Abbas (supra), the point for consideration was whether a retrospective declaration could be made regarding equivalence of senior posts for the purpose of Rule 3(3)(b) of the Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. The rule laid down that the year of allotment of an officer who was appointed to the service by promotion in accordance with the recruitment rules shall be the year of allotment of the junior-most among the officers who entered the service by direct recruitment who officiated continuously on a senior post from a date earlier than the date of commencement of such officiation by the former. The second proviso to the rule laid down that the promotee shall be deemed to have officiated continuously on a senior post prior to the date of the inclusion of his name in the select list prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations if the period of such officiation prior to that date was approved by the Central Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. Overruling the contention raised on behalf of direct recruits, the Supreme Court held that retrospective declaration is in the scheme of things practical as well as reasonable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 25 - A N Ray - Full Document
1   2 3 Next