Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.58 seconds)
V.P.Mittal vs State Of Gujarat on 21 January, 2021 cites

State Of Punjab And Anr. vs Sardari Lal And Ors. on 28 November, 2000

[2.1] According to Shri G.M. Joshi, learned Counsel in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.9467 of 1998 and the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Sardari Lal and Ors reported in (2003) 10 SCC 253; in the case of Union of India Vs. Gurnam Singh reported in (1982) 2 SCC 314 and in the case of State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Ratan Behari Dey and Others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 63, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the Rules framed by the University as pension is a condition of service. Such rules can be framed by the University independently without any approval from the State Government. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted that the University need not ask for or wait for approval or sanction of the State Government and cannot take a stand contrary to the settled law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - B N Agarwal - Full Document

State Of West Bengal And Ors. vs Ratan Behari Dey And Ors. on 6 August, 1993

[2.1] According to Shri G.M. Joshi, learned Counsel in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.9467 of 1998 and the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Sardari Lal and Ors reported in (2003) 10 SCC 253; in the case of Union of India Vs. Gurnam Singh reported in (1982) 2 SCC 314 and in the case of State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Ratan Behari Dey and Others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 63, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the Rules framed by the University as pension is a condition of service. Such rules can be framed by the University independently without any approval from the State Government. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted that the University need not ask for or wait for approval or sanction of the State Government and cannot take a stand contrary to the settled law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 164 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Tarsem Singh And Ors on 9 May, 2016

learned Advocate for the respondent - University that this petition is barred by delay and latches as the petitioner has retired long back in the year 1994 and he has approached this Court for this purpose only in the year 2005, is required to be rejected as in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of and Others Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 that the benefit upto last three years from the filing of petition could be granted to the petitioner for the purpose of monetary aspect.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 249 - Full Document

U.N. Pai, A. Majumdar And M.L. Varudkar vs State Of Gujarat on 13 December, 2000

[1.7] According to the petitioner, the University, being autonomous body, is empowered to frame the Rules /conditions of service of its employees and there is no need to get approval from the State Government. For the said purpose, he has relied on the communication addressed by the Registrar of the University dated 09.10.2004 addressed to the Page 5 of 20 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 31 23:27:05 IST 2021 C/SCA/14748/2005 JUDGMENT Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar whereby it is stated that the Rules framed by it for considering the prior services rendered by its employees with other State Governments is to be counted as continuous service for the purpose of pension does not need any approval. However, in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of V.A. Vadukar Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No.9467 of 1998, as also in view of Sections 23(1) and 26(1) of the Gujarat Agricultural University Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1969'), the Board of Management of the University is empowered to frame the Rules /conditions of service of its employees, which is not requiring any approval of the State Government under the 'Act, 1969', and therefore, it was requested that the exercise undertaken for the approval of those Rules becomes redundant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - D H Waghela - Full Document

Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006

i. Union Bank of India Vs. N.B. Dhobi, (2006) 1 GLR 82, headnote A & B (para - 16 relevant @ pg.91 bottom) ii. U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 (paras 12 & 13) [3.5] It is further submitted that the service conditions of the petitioner were governed under the provisions of 'Act, 1969' and Statutes 1972 framed thereunder. Schedule II of First Statute contains 'Gujarat Agricultural University Employees Pension Rules'. It is submitted that as per the Rules services rendered prior to resignation shall not be included for the purpose of qualifying service for pension. Therefore, it is submitted that since the petitioner has resigned from his service rendered at Rajasthan, cannot be included for the purpose of qualifying service for pension, and therefore, he has requested to reject the petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 661 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Gurnam Singh on 23 March, 2004

[2.1] According to Shri G.M. Joshi, learned Counsel in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.9467 of 1998 and the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Another Vs. Sardari Lal and Ors reported in (2003) 10 SCC 253; in the case of Union of India Vs. Gurnam Singh reported in (1982) 2 SCC 314 and in the case of State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Ratan Behari Dey and Others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 63, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the Rules framed by the University as pension is a condition of service. Such rules can be framed by the University independently without any approval from the State Government. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted that the University need not ask for or wait for approval or sanction of the State Government and cannot take a stand contrary to the settled law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 29 - Full Document
1   2 Next