Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.12 seconds)
Anju vs Ut Administration Of Chandigarh on 10 May, 2019 cites

Paramjeet Kaur @ Anju And Ors vs Union Of India on 27 March, 2015

13. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and examined the material on file, with the able assistance of both the learned counsel. Certain facts go without any dispute at all that the applicants were appointed during 1996 to 2000 and at that point of time, possessed higher qualifications than the minimum requirement for the posts of Clerks in the recruitment rules. They were appointed and discharged duties and responsibilities of Clerks and are getting the salary of Clerks and (OA.No. 060/01535/2017- Anju & Others Vs. UOI etc.) 9 their cases for regularization against the posts of Clerks had been recommended time and again by respondent No. 4. The regular vacant posts of Clerks are available with the respondents against which the applicants discharged their functions as Clerks. Even intra-departmental communications prove that they discharged duties as Clerks and were paid salary equivalent to Clerks. Thus, they discharged duties of Clerks against vacant sanctioned regular post, though respondents claim that posts of DEO are not regular.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 17 - K Singh - Full Document

Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 19 February, 2014

8. The applicants then filed M.A.No.124/2014 in C.P. no. 193/2013 for non compliance of order dated 5.3.2014. On 2.7.2014, respondent No. 2 gave personal hearing to the applicants in the course of which the applicants read out paras 8- 9 of the order dated 5.3.2014 wherein categorical directions were issued by the Tribunal to the effect that the respondents were given another chance to take steps to regularize the services of the applicants against the available posts of Clerks. The applicants also referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMA DEVI & ORS., (2006) 4 SCC 1 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in AMARENDRA KUMAR MOHAPATRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA, 2014(2) SCT 304 and NIHAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, 2013(5) SLR 436.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 151 - T S Thakur - Full Document

The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing ... vs C. Muddaiah on 7 September, 2007

In Appeal (Civil) No. 4108 of 2007 titled THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD Vs. C. MUDDAIAH decided on 07/09/2007, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled that (1) a Binding judicial pronouncement between the parties cannot be made ineffective or inoperative with the aid of legislative power by making a provision which, in substance and in reality, overrides and overrules a decision rendered by competent Court (2) Once a direction is issued by a competent court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation and (OA.No. 060/01535/2017- Anju & Others Vs. UOI etc.) 12 (3) if a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law".
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 287 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Lucknow Development Authority & 3 Ors. vs Bharatiya Warishtha Nagarik Samiti ... on 11 April, 2018

Non-compliance of order, led to filing of C.P. No. 060/00048/2016 titled Satinder pal & others Vs. Bhawna Garg and during pendency of case, the respondents passed order dated 1.6.2016 (Annexure A-2) and as such C.P. was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 3.6.2016 (Annexure A-20). They plead that regular posts are available and work is there but the respondents are filling those posts from outsourcing as is evident from letters dated 11.8.2016, 30.3.2017, 31.3.2016 and 28.6.2017 (Annexure A-21 Colly). The applicant submitted representation dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure A-22) for adjustment as Clerks. The factual accuracy of availability of posts and working of applicants is duly admitted in letter dated 27.4.2017 (Annexure A-23) and payment of pay and allowances on lower side to applicants is also apparent from letter dated 3.10.2017 9Anenxure A-25). However, the claim of applicants has been rejected vide order dated 22.8.2017 (Annexure A-1).
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1