Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.53 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India And Ors vs R.K. Sharma on 9 October, 2001
7. We have considered the arguments and
perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has
arrived at a conclusion to hold that the respondents
were entitled to claim MACP-III following the
judgment of the Bombay High Court in M.P. Joseph
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir
Singh. But in the latest judgment of the Supreme
8
Court in the case of R.K. Sharma (supra), the
position has been made clear. It is held as below:
Shri M. P. Joseph vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 15 October, 2018
6. Sri Shambuling Salimath submitted that
the Tribunal followed the judgment of the Bombay
High Court in the case of M.P.Joseph vs. Union of
India and others (W.P.No.1763/2013) and of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
and others vs. Balbir Singh Turn and another
(2018) 11 SCC 99. He would argue further that the
respondents became entitled to claim MACP-III soon
after completion of 20 years from the date of their
promotion as Postal Assistants. Therefore, the writ
petitions are devoid of merits.
Union Of India vs Balbir Singh Turn on 8 December, 2017
6. Sri Shambuling Salimath submitted that
the Tribunal followed the judgment of the Bombay
High Court in the case of M.P.Joseph vs. Union of
India and others (W.P.No.1763/2013) and of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
and others vs. Balbir Singh Turn and another
(2018) 11 SCC 99. He would argue further that the
respondents became entitled to claim MACP-III soon
after completion of 20 years from the date of their
promotion as Postal Assistants. Therefore, the writ
petitions are devoid of merits.
1