Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Luxmi Kant Shukla on 19 August, 2011 cites

Union Of India vs Sayed Muzaffar Mir on 20 September, 1994

16. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir (supra) cited by the respondent does not apply to the facts of the present case. In that case, Rule 1802 (b) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code provided that the railway servant could retire voluntarily from service by serving three months notice and a railway servant by his letter dated 22.07.1985 gave a three months notice to the Railways to retire from service. After the three months period expired on 21.10.1985, the order of removal of the railway servant was passed on 04.11.1985. On these facts the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Mumbai Bench, held that since the period of notice of voluntary retirement had expired on 21.10.1985, the order of removal was nonest in the eye of law and this Court did not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. In the present case, the relevant proviso to Clauses
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 64 - B L Hansaria - Full Document

Bishan Lal Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 12 January, 1978

9. Mr. Rao next submitted that in any case the State Government as the appointing authority has considered the request of the respondent for voluntary retirement and rejected the same as would be evident from the relevant file and in particular the note dated 26.11.2009 put up by the Under Secretary, Appointment Department and dealt with by the Special Secretary of the Government on 27.11.2009 and by the Principal Secretary of the Department and the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., on 02.12.2009 and orally approved by the Chief Minister on 08.12.2009 as recorded by the Special Secretary on 08.12.2009. He submitted that the High Court has, however, taken a view in the impugned judgment that as the Chief Minister has not put her signature in the order dated 08.12.2009 rejecting the request of the respondent for voluntary retirement, the order was not dully authenticated in terms of the Rules of Business. He cited the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bishan Lal v. State of Haryana (AIR 1977 P&H 7) that an order cannot be 1 called in question merely because the Chief Minister has not put his signature on the official file. He finally submitted that since the State Government has not accepted the request for voluntary retirement made by the respondent, the respondent continued in service till he was dismissed by the order dated 07.09.2010.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 95 - M H Beg - Full Document
1