Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (2.14 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 115 in The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni & Ors on 8 September, 1981
Relying
upon the decision in the State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant
Kulkarni, (1981) 4 SCC 130, this Court held that a mere chance of promotion
was not a condition of service and the fact that there was a reduction in
the chance of promotion would not amount to a change in the conditions of
service."
Union Of India And Others vs S.L. Dutta And Others on 16 November, 1990
In S.L. Dutta case a change in the promotional policy was challenged on the
ground that as a result, service conditions of the respondent were
adversely affected since his chances of promotion were reduced.
State Bank Of Mysore vs G.P. Thulasi Bai on 24 July, 1985
In State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit, 1967 SLR 753, this Court
held that a rule which merely affects chances of promotion cannot be
regarded as varying a condition of service. Chances of promotion are not
conditions of service.
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Kailash Nath Etc on 22 November, 1988
as held in State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, (1989) 1 SCC 321,
by a Bench of two Judges but the context in which the law therein was laid
must be noted. The question therein was whether non-prosecution for a grave
offence after expiry of four years is a condition of service? While
negativing the contention that non-prosecution after expiry of 4 years is
not a condition of service, this Court elaborated the subject and the above
view was taken. The ratio therein does not have any bearing on the point in
issue. Perhaps the question may bear relevance, if an employee was
initially recruited into the service according to the rules and promotion
was regulated in the same rules to higher echelons of service. In that
arena promotion may be considered to be a condition of service.
A.K. Bhatnagar And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 November, 1990
In A.K.
Bhatnagar v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 544, this Court held that
seniority is an incidence of service and where the service rules prescribe
the method of its computation it is squarely governed by such rules. In
their absence ordinarily the length of service is taken into account. In
that case the direct recruits were made senior to the recruits by
regularisation although the appellants were appointed earlier in point of
time and uninterruptedly remained in service as temporary appointees along
with the appellants but later on when recruited by direct recruitment, they
were held senior to the promotees.
B. S. Vadera vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 March, 1968
"145. It is true that the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution can be issued by amending or altering the Rules with
retrospectivity as consistently held by this Court in a catena of
decisions, viz., B.S. Vadera v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118; Raj Kumar
v. Union of India, (1975) 4 SCC 13; K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P., (1985) 1
SCC 523; T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana, 1986 Supp. SCC 584, and a host of
other decisions. But the question is whether the Rules can be amended
taking away the vested right.