Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Laxman Prasad Meena vs Northern Railway on 8 December, 2025 cites

State Of Karnataka & Ors vs C. Lalitha on 31 January, 2006

6.2 The Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 has held that service jurisprudence evolved by it from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly; only because one person has approached the Court does not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently;
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 544 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014

6.2 The Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 has held that service jurisprudence evolved by it from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly; only because one person has approached the Court does not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently;
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1005 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Amrit Lal Berry vs Collector Of Central Excise, New Delhi & ... on 10 December, 1974

"14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714]
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 281 - M H Beg - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni & Ors on 8 September, 1981

19. The stand of the Department relying on the judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others, (1981) 4 SCC 130 to contend that mere reduction in chance of consideration did not result in deprivation of any right does not appeal to us. The appellant's case is founded on the principle of Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65 =1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f5 1d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc9 Dutt 0ccfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2025.12.24 12:43:44+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 13 O.A. No.3403/2023 for the gander. If the applicants in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 whom we find are identically situated to the appellant were found to be eligible to be given a third chance for promotion, because they acquired eligibility before the amendment to AI No. 37 of 1978 on 20.03.2013, we find no reason why the appellant should not be treated alike.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 120 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next