Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.12 seconds)
Kumar Satyendra Prasad vs Coal India Ltd. & Ors on 19 July, 2012 cites

Punjab National Bank vs P.K. Mittal on 13 February, 1989

(xiv) Counsel for the respondents is also relying upon the decision  rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National  Bank Vs. P.K. Mittal reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 175.            This judgment is also not helpful to the respondents because  looking to the facts of the case, it appears that there was absence of  any provision of acceptance of the resignation and therefore, it was  made   effective   immediately   and   automatically   from   the   date   on  which the resignation was tendered whereas, looking to the peculiar  facts of the case the resignation was made effective upon completion  of the notice period whereas here, there is Rule 15.3 which envisages  acceptance   of   the   resignation   which   also   refers   the   right   to   the  Management   not   to   accept   the   resignation;   which   also   refers   the  right of Management to get 'NO DEMAND CERTIFICATE. Thus, the  14 rules of acceptance of the  resignation, which were referred in the  aforesaid decisions are different from the facts of the present case  and therefore, the said judgment is not applicable for resolving the  disputes between the parties in the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 142 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Raj Kumar Karwal vs Union Of India And Ors.Withkirpal Mohan ... on 21 March, 1990

The   reliance   placed   for   the  appellants on the decision reported in Raj Kumar case is inappropriate  to the facts of this case. In that case this Court merely emphasised the  position   that   when   a   public   servant   has   invited   by   his   letter   of  resignation   determination   of   his   employment   his   service   clearly  stands terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is  accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law  or rule governing the condition of the service to the contrary, it will  not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it  is accepted by the appropriate authority and that till the resignation is  accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules  governing   the   acceptance,   the   public   servant   concerned   had  locus   poenitentiae but not thereafter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 503 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy on 10 November, 2000

(ix) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  Union of India & Another Vs. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy  reported in  (2001) 1 SCC 158  in paragraph nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 as  under:­        "6.   We  have   carefully   considered   the   submissions   of   the   learned  counsel   appearing   on   either   side.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 49 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Shri Gopal Chandra Misra And Ors on 15 February, 1978

This judgment was the subject­matter  of consideration alongside the other relevant case law on the subject  by   a   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   decision   reported   in  Union   of   India  v.  Gopal   Chandra   Misra.  A   request   for   premature  retirement   which   required   the   acceptance   of   the   competent   or  appropriate   authority   will   not   be   complete   till   accepted   by   such  competent authority and the request could definitely be withdrawn  before it became so complete. It is all the more so in a case where the  request   for   premature   retirement   was   made   to   take   effect   from   a  future date as in this case. The majority of the Constitution Bench  analysed and declared the position of law to be as hereunder: (SCC  p.317, para 50)  "50.   It will bear repetition that the general principle is that  in the absence of a legal contractual or constitutional bar, a   'prospective' resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it   becomes effective, and it becomes effective when it operates to   terminate the employment or the office tenure of the resigner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 277 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Srikantha S.M vs Bharath Earth Movers Ltd on 7 October, 2005

(x) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  Srikantha S.M. Vs. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. reported in (2005) 8  10 SCC 314 in paragraph nos. 11, 15, 17 and 19 as under:­  "11.   The Division Bench, by a cryptic order, dismissed the appeal  observing that when the resignation was submitted on 4­1­1993 by  the appellant and it was accepted on the same day, the fact that he  was relieved on 15­1­1993 did not make any difference. To us, both  the courts were wrong in taking the view that the appellant was no  more in service after 4­1­1993.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 97 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Shambhu Murari Sinha vs Project & Development India Ltd. & Anr on 13 March, 2002

(xii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  Shambhu  Murari   Sinha  Vs.   Project  &  Development  India  Ltd  &  Another  reported   in  (2002)   3   SCC   437  that   when   voluntary  retirement was withdrawn by an employee, he continued to remain  in service.  The relationship of an employer and employee did not   come to an end and the employee has ' locus penitentiae'     to withdraw      his   proposal   for   voluntary   retirement.   He   is   therefore,   entitled   to  rejoin his duty and the respondents corporation was bound to allow  him to work. The jurisprudence which is applicable in the voluntary  retirement is equally applicable to the voluntary resignation. As per  Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 183 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Gopal Chandra Misra And Ors. on 15 February, 1978

(viii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  Union   of   India   and   Others   Vs.   Gopal   Chandra   Misra   &   others  reported   in  (1978)   2   SCC   301  in   paragraph   nos.   41   and   46   as  under:­ "41.  The   general   principle   that   emerges   from   the   foregoing  conspectus, is that in the absence of anything to the contrary in the  provisions governing the terms and conditions of the office/post, an  intimation   in   writing   sent   to   the   competent   authority   by   the  incumbent, of his intention or proposal to resign his office/post from  a future specified date can be withdrawn by him at any time before it  becomes effective, i.e. before it effects termination of the tenure of  the office/post or the employment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 31 - Full Document
1