Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
Learned Counsel would rely on Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhan Das and Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi .
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Amrendra Kumar Mishra on 26 September, 2006
In Amarendra Kumar's case (supra), the Supreme Court observed:
R.K.Agrawal vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 31 October, 2006
In R.K. Agrawal's case (supra), the High Court had not considered the aspect of delay and laches and it was in such circumstances that the Supreme Court had requested the High Court to consider this point also with reference to the pleadings raised by the parties. The said judgment would have had relevance if this Court had failed to consider the specific plea urged by Sri Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel, with regards laches on the part of the petitioner in invoking its jurisdiction.
Y. Venkataramana Reddy vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 10 January, 2003
17. While it is true that the Division Bench of this Court, in Y. Venkataramana Reddy's case (supra), has held that the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 do not have retrospective effect and has no application to persons who have been removed or dismissed from service prior to the coming into force of the rules, the fact remains that Paragraphs 309 and 310 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950 confer a similar benefit on employee who have been dismissed/removed from service. Sri Gauri Shankar Sanghi, learned Standing Counsel, would fairly submit that the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950 was in force when the petitioner was removed from service in the year 1969. Since the impugned order, of the third respondent dated 28-6-2000, has not been passed in accordance with either the Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 or Paragraphs 309 and 310 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter remanded to the 3rd respondent-Competent Authority to consider the. matter afresh in accordance with Paragraphs 309 and 310 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950.
1