Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.63 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of M.P. & Ors vs Lalit Kumar Verma on 24 November, 2006
"19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in State of M.P. and
Ors. v. Lalit Kumar Verma AIR 2007 SCW 70 has held as under in
regard to illegal appointment:
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
20. A constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. (2006)
4 SCC 01 has held as under in regard to regularization and
absorption of the daily wage employees.
Supreme Court Reports [1962] Supp.Dr. ... vs The Governing Body Of The Nalanda ... on 15 December, 1961
52. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary
employees when they approach the court, is the issue of
a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or
its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent
service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the
question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in
favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper
to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this
Court in Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Governing Body
of the Nalanda College. That case arose out of a refusal
to promote the writ Petitioner therein as the Principal of
a college. This Court held that in order that a mandamus
may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it
must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on
the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right
under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical
position continues and a mandamus could not be issued
in favour of the employees directing the Government to
make them permanent since the employees cannot
show that they have an enforceable legal right to be
permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty
to make them permanent.
Deokinandan Prasad vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 May, 1971
20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a
gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or
grace of the employer not claimable as a right and,
therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through
Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision
of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v.
State of Bihar wherein this Court authoritatively ruled
that pension is a right and the payment of it does not
depend upon the discretion of the Government but is
governed by the rules and a government servant coming
within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was
further held that the grant of pension does not depend
upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of
quantifying the amount having regard to service and
other allied matters that it may be necessary for the
authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to
receive pension flows to the officer not because of any
such order but by virtue of the rules.
State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh And Ors on 10 May, 1991
This view was
reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh.