Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)
Raj Pal vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 17 April, 2023 cites

Union Of India vs N.P. Dhamania on 20 October, 1994

11. On the other hand, the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. N.P.Damania 1995 (Supp) (1) SCC 1 examined the concept of granting the deemed date of promotion with retrospective effect. In that case, Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (hereinafter referred to as 'ACP') did not agree with recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee without recording the reasons. In that context the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was not correct in directing the deemed date of promotion but directed the ACP to reconsider the matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 22 - S Mohan - Full Document

Union Of India vs Manpreet Singh Poonam on 8 March, 2022

Recently, in UOI vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam 2022 (6 )SCC 105 the Supreme Court once again examined the same matter in issue and reviewed the entire case law and held that the deemed date of promotion should not be ordinarily resorted to because the departmental Promotion Committee is merely a recommendatory/advisory body and ultimate decision is to be taken by the competent authority. The 8 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 21-04-2023 22:15:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:053346 CWP-25474-2015 (O&M) 9 2023:PHHC:053346 recommendations of the DPC are not final and binding on the competent authority. It was also held that delay in consideration of promotion due to vacancy creates no vested right and the promotion cannot be granted retrospectively dehors the rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 31 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

State Of Uttaranchal & Anr .... ... vs Dinesh Kumar Sharma ....Respond on 4 December, 2006

This Court has also examined the judgments passed in State of Uttranchal and another vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma 2007 (1) SCC 683, UOI vs. K.K.Wadhera 1989 (Supp) (2) SCC 625, Fakir Chand Chawla vs. State of Punjab 2013 (4) SCT 659 and Sikander Singh vs. State of Punjab 2016 (4) SCT 542 wherein it has been held that unless provided in the rules there is no provision for deemed promotion on the date of the vacancy."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 208 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Bhajneek Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 22 February, 2023

12. It may be noted here that the learned counsel representing the petitioner has relied upon a large number of judgments in support of his submissions which have already been considered by this Court in CWP-24903-2015 titled as 'Bhajneek Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another' decided on 22.02.2023. The relevant discussion is contained in paragraphs 10 and 11, which are extracted as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - A Kshetarpal - Full Document

Union Of India And Another vs Hem Raj And Another on 30 January, 2009

13 The learned counsel representing the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment in Union of India and another vs. Hem Raj Chauhan and others 2010 (4) SCC 290. On a careful reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that while interpreting the provisions of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 the Court has held that the State and the Centre Government are bound to undertake cadre review periodically. This judgment is based upon the interpretation of the peculiar provisions in the said Rules. Hence, the aforesaid judgment does not help the petitioner as it does not apply to the facts of his case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - K N Kaur - Full Document
1