Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.33 seconds)
P. Hareesh vs Union Of India on 13 August, 2010 cites

Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001

7. The situation thus leads to the next question, whether the earlier decision of this Bench be followed by holding the later decision as per incuriam or the matter has to be referred to a larger bench, in case the said order is respectfully differed. After considering the judicial precedents in Sub-Inspector Rooplal Vs. Lt. Governor, (2006) 1 SCC 644, Vijay Laxmi Sadho (Dr.) Vs. Jagdish, (2001) 2 SCC 247 and State of Bihar Vs. Kalika Kuer, (2003) 5 SCC 448, the Honourable Tribunal observed thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 146 - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Kalika Kuer @Kalika Singh & Ors on 25 April, 2003

7. The situation thus leads to the next question, whether the earlier decision of this Bench be followed by holding the later decision as per incuriam or the matter has to be referred to a larger bench, in case the said order is respectfully differed. After considering the judicial precedents in Sub-Inspector Rooplal Vs. Lt. Governor, (2006) 1 SCC 644, Vijay Laxmi Sadho (Dr.) Vs. Jagdish, (2001) 2 SCC 247 and State of Bihar Vs. Kalika Kuer, (2003) 5 SCC 448, the Honourable Tribunal observed thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 272 - B Kumar - Full Document

A.M. Geetha Devi vs Union Of India on 20 October, 2009

Identical matters were considered by a learned DB of this Tribunal in OA number 605/2008, A.M. Geetha Devi Vs. Union of India and Anr. alongwith OA number 606/2008 and OA number 697/2008. The learned Bench in its judgment dated 20.10.2009 considered the previous judgements of this Tribunal and held that the provisionally appointed GDS would be eligible for increments in TRCA as also bonus for the years they were engaged on provisional basis. Considering the two diametrically opposite decisions in OA number 576/2007 (decided on 3.07.2008) and OA number 698/2007 (decided on 20.10.2008), it was held that the latter order was per incuriam in as much as it did not take any notice of the judgments of the same learned Bench only three months earlier. The learned Bench in OA number 605/2008 posed the following question:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1