Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (3.77 seconds)
Dr. Jeewan Kumar Mitra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 September, 2025 cites

K.I. Shephard & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 September, 1987

16. No doubt, in exceptional cases where the court has expressly prohibited the extension of the benefit to those who have not approached the court till then or in cases where a grievance in personam is redressed, the matter may acquire a different dimension, and the department may be justified in denying the relief to an individual who claims the extension of the benefit of the said judgment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 482 - M Rangnath - Full Document

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

2025:JHHC:26544 "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 vs. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, (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 discrimination. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce 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

Lt. Col. Suresh Chand vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 July, 2008

In a recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Lt. Col Suprita Chandel Vs. Union of India & Ors." reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3664, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with more or less a similar issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 14 of the aforesaid Judgment has held that when a declaration of law is obtained in favour of the party, other similarly situated ought to be extended the same benefit.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Shyam Sundar Yadav & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 6 April, 2009

14. Thus, in view of what has been held above, I am inclined to allow the writ petitions. The respondents are directed to give similar benefits to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court in L.P.A No.86/2018, (Dr. Shyam Sundar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) where it has already been held the shifting of the cut-off date is not proper.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - N N Tiwari - Full Document

Ganesh Chandra Singha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 January, 2023

13. This Court in another writ petition W.P.(S) No.38/2025 (Dr. Ganesh Chandra Sinha Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) [Nutral Citation No.- 2025:JHHC:24327] while deciding similar issue involving the same DACP scheme has held that when in principle an entitlement of a group of persons has already been decided, it is immaterial as to who are the person who were appearing before the Court in the litigation. Benefits of the policy decision should be granted to all even if they are not a party to the litigation. It has also been held that this will avoid unnecessary litigation also. Similarly situated persons who even if have not appeared before the Court are entitled for same service benefits and the State cannot deny the same, as the persons who were not given the benefit and the persons who got the same are not a separate category.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S Sarkar - Full Document
1