Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.92 seconds)
Romesh Garg vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 24 April, 2015 cites

State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur & Others vs Jag Mohan Lal on 13 September, 1988

"8. It is true that in establishments like AIIMS, there is an age of superannuation governing the length of service of its officers and employees. Such age of superannuation may be suitably altered by way of reducing the age so as to affect even the serving employees under appropriate circumstances and no exception can be taken to such course of action. Similarly under the Service Rules, there may be provision for extension of service after the attainment of the age of superannuation and it is well settled that in the event of refusal by an employer to grant an extension, the employee cannot MONIKA 2015.04.24 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document C. W. P. Nos. 3826 and 5215 of 2015 14 justifiably claim to be deprived of any right or privilege. The view taken is that the employer has a discretion to grant or not to grant such extension having regard to the interest of the employer or the establishment. This view is expressed by this Court in the Case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. vs. Jag Mohan Lal (AIR 1989 SC 75). In this case, at AIR para 12, this Court observed as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 46 - K J Shetty - Full Document

K. Nagaraj & Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 18 January, 1985

In this regard, I may also refer to the decision of the Apex Court in K. Nagaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported as (1985) 1 SCC 523. In that case, challenge to the decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh to reduce the age of superannuation from 58 years to 55 years was negated by the Apex Court and while rejecting such challenge, the Apex Court also indicated so as to what should be the MONIKA 2015.04.24 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document C. W. P. Nos. 3826 and 5215 of 2015 16 approach of the Courts while dealing with such issues and observed as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 332 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Lal Chand Goyal vs Punjab State Agricultural Marketing ... on 11 February, 2014

"Plainly no fault can be found with the said decision. The question of grant of extension in service beyond the age of superannuation has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various cases. The common thread in all these decisions is that there is no legal right vested in an employee to seek extension in service beyond the age of superannuation. It is a discretion available to every employer, every management and State to exercise discretion keeping in view public interest. It has also been stated that the extension in service is not conferment of benefit or privilege on the Officer."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 12 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 February, 2005

"23. We are also of the view that grant of rebate, exemption or concession is in the nature of policy of the Government. Normally in such policy matters, a court of law will not interfere unless the policy is shown to be contrary to law, inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or otherwise arbitrary or unreasonable. Since, the policy decision as reflected in Clause 3 of Notification No. 132/82 cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or inconsistent MONIKA 2015.04.24 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document C. W. P. Nos. 3826 and 5215 of 2015 25 with statutory provisions, a person claiming the protection under the said notification has to comply with the conditions laid down in the notification. As the appellant has been granted benefit of rebate in excise duty as per Clause 3 of the notification, the action cannot be held unlawful and the appellant-society has no reason to make grievance against the action of the Revenue. [Emphasis supplied]"
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Darshan Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 December, 2013

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have only been charge-sheeted. There is no final pronouncement of their guilt, and therefore, at this stage, having only been charge-sheeted, they could not be denied extension in service. After having considered this argument, it does not find favour with me. The petitioners are claiming MONIKA 2015.04.24 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document C. W. P. Nos. 3826 and 5215 of 2015 27 extension in their service after having attained the age of superannuation. They have already played their entire innings and now, it was time to hang their boots. At that stage, if the employer had decided to grant extension in service to only those of its employees, against whom, there is no charge of serious misconduct, then I find no fault with such decision on the part of the employer, especially in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court that beyond the age of superannuation, an employee has no vested right to continue in service and that such continuance in service can only be at the discretion of the employer. It is true that culmination of inquiry proceedings against an employee could result in him being found guilty or otherwise, but the employer is not required to await the finalization of such proceedings especially for the grant of extension in service. For retaining such employee after he has superannuated, according to me, the employer is well within his rights to only retain those employees, who do not carry the taint of a pending disciplinary proceeding for serious misconduct, which could entail a major penalty.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - A G Masih - Full Document
1   2 Next