Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Union Public Service Commission vs Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others on 2 February, 2006
In support of his
contention, the counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment in the
case of Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela &
Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 482.
S. L. Agarwal vs General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd on 19 December, 1969
12. We have considered the submissions of the parties. The question as to
the posts that enjoy protection under Article 311 of the Constitution, has
been considered by the Supreme Court on many occasions. Reference may
be made to the decision of the Constitution Bench in S.L. Agarwal (Dr.) v.
G.M., Hindustan Steel Ltd. (1970) 1 SCC 177. In the said case, appellant
therein was appointed as Assistant Surgeon by the Board of Directors of
Hindustan Steel Ltd., a public sector undertaking, on contract basis and his
services were terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract. He
filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that his services were
wrongly terminated which was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution.
The Respondent contended that Article 311 was not applicable to him as he
was employed by a Corporation and he neither belonged to civil service of
the Union nor held a civil post under the Union. Negativing the contention
of the appellant, the Constitution-Bench held that Hindustan Steel Limited is
not a department of the government and its employees are not holding posts
under the State. It has its independent existence under the Companies Act
and therefore, its employees are not holders of 'a civil post under the Union'
as stated in the Article 311.
Ajit Kumar Nag vs G.M.(P.J.)Indian Oil Corporation. ... on 19 September, 2005
Similar view has been taken by the Supreme
Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn.
Ltd., Haldia & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 764; Satinder Singh Arora v. State Bank
of Patiala 1992 Supp (2) SCC 224; State Bank of India v. S. Vijaya Kumar
LPA No. 157/2021 Page 15 of 19
(1990) 4 SCC 481; Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director & Ors. (1989)
3 SCC 448.
State Bank Of India & Ors. Etc vs S. Vijaya Kumar & Ors. Etc on 18 July, 1990
Similar view has been taken by the Supreme
Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn.
Ltd., Haldia & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 764; Satinder Singh Arora v. State Bank
of Patiala 1992 Supp (2) SCC 224; State Bank of India v. S. Vijaya Kumar
LPA No. 157/2021 Page 15 of 19
(1990) 4 SCC 481; Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director & Ors. (1989)
3 SCC 448.
Pyare Lal Sharma vs Managing Director, Jammu & ... on 19 July, 1989
Similar view has been taken by the Supreme
Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn.
Ltd., Haldia & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 764; Satinder Singh Arora v. State Bank
of Patiala 1992 Supp (2) SCC 224; State Bank of India v. S. Vijaya Kumar
LPA No. 157/2021 Page 15 of 19
(1990) 4 SCC 481; Pyare Lal Sharma v. Managing Director & Ors. (1989)
3 SCC 448.
Dr. (Mrs.) Gurjeewan Garewal vs Dr. (Mrs.) Sumitra Dash & Ors on 12 April, 2004
In Dr. Gurjeewan Garewal (Mrs.) v. Dr. Sumitra Dash (Mrs.) &
Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 263, the issue involved before the Supreme Court was
whether the respondent therein, working with Post Graduate Institute of
Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh could be said to
be holding a 'civil post' with the State so as to be afforded protection under
Article 311.
State Of Assam & Ors vs Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta on 3 October, 1966
The Supreme Court, relying upon the judgements in State of
Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta AIR 1967 SC 884 and S.L. Agarwal (Dr.)
v. G.M., Hindustan Steel Ltd. supra, held as under: