Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)The General Manager, Southern Railway vs Rangachari on 28 April, 1961
41. It is, therefore, clear that by whichever source of recruitment the petitioner was taken in the cadre, once he entered into that cadre he belonged to the same service as opposite parties 2 to 26, and he, along with the opposite parties 2 to 25, was governed by the same set of rules and he could not be discriminated against. It was held by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Southern Railway, and Anr. v. Rangachari; Gurbax Dasintervener that:
Ram Autar Pandey vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. on 21 December, 1961
Ram Autar Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1962 L.L.J. 31;
Anil Nath De vs Collector Of Central Excise, Calcutta ... on 4 February, 1958
Raj Kishore vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. on 19 November, 1953
M/S. Mathra Prashad And Sons vs State Of Punjab on 5 December, 1961
The High Court, Calcutta vs Amal Kumar Roy on 9 April, 1962
42. The last point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned orders are also hit by Article 311(2) of the Constitution inasmuch as the petitioner's seniority in the substantive cadre was sought to be reduced by the order dated 31 May 1963 and that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause against the reduction in rank. There is no force in this submission. In my opinion, Article 313(2) of the Constitution is not applicable to the facts of the present case since the impugned orders do not amount to reduction in rank by way of punishment on account of petitioner's reduction. It was held by the Supreme Court in High Court, Calcutta, and Anr. v. Amal Kumar and Ors. that: