Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Union Of India & Anr vs Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors on 6 July, 2011
Based on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Union of
India and another vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and others reported in
(2011) 7 SCC 397, writ court rejected their prayer. Being aggrieved
they preferred W.A. Nos.226 and 491 of 2012. A Hon'ble Division
Bench of this court in W.A. Nos.226 and 491 of 2012 dated
05.11.2013, while setting aside the impugned G.O. dated 28.8.2008,
at paragraph Nos.12 to 14, ordered as follows:
M.Thiyagarajan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2017
19. Following the judgment made in W.A. Nos.226 and 491 of
2012 dated 05.11.2013, another Hon'ble Division Bench of this court
in W.A. No.1271/2012 dated 23.4.2014 in the matter of
M.Thiyagarajan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its
Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries
Department, Chennai and others, set aside the order of the learned
single Judge dated 30.8.2011 made in W.P. No.26962 of 2008,
denying regularization and consequently, while allowing the writ
appeal, issued a direction to the respondents therein to grant all
consequential benefits to the appellant regularising his services with
effect from 1.7.1999 i.e. the date of the joining in the regular post of
Animal Husbandry Assistant and also directed the respondents therein
to sanction increment with effect from 1.7.2000 with all consequential
benefits.
Prem Chand Somchand Shah And Anr.Etc. ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 5 February, 1991
i) In Prem Chand Somchand Shah v. Union of India
reported in (1991) 2 SCC 48, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at
paragraph 8, held thus,
"8. As regards the right to equality guaranteed
under Article 14, the position is well settled that the
said right ensures equality amongst equals and its aim
is to protect persons similarly placed against
discriminatory treatment. It means that all persons
similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Conversely
discrimination may result if persons dissimilarly situate
are treated equally. Even amongst persons similarly
situate differential treatment would be permissible
between one class and the other. In that event it is
necessary that the differential treatment should be
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things that are grouped together from
others left out of the group and that differentia must
have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the statute in question."
State Of Karnataka And Ors. vs N. Parameshwarappa And Ors. on 9 October, 2002
ii) In State of Karnataka v. N.Parameshwarappa reported in
2003 (12) SCC 192, in paragraph 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
thus:
State Of U.P vs Dayanand Chakrawarty & Ors on 2 July, 2013
iv) In State of U.P. v. Dayanand Chakrawarty reported in
2013 (8) Scale 74 : (2013) 7 SCC 595, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
http://www.judis.nic.in
43
held that there cannot be any discrimination in treating equally placed
persons on same footing, for all purposes.
Section 58 in Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
Based on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Karnataka vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Union of
India and another vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and others reported in
(2011) 7 SCC 397, writ court rejected their prayer. Being aggrieved
they preferred W.A. Nos.226 and 491 of 2012. A Hon'ble Division
Bench of this court in W.A. Nos.226 and 491 of 2012 dated
05.11.2013, while setting aside the impugned G.O. dated 28.8.2008,
at paragraph Nos.12 to 14, ordered as follows:
Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016
1