Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Narinder Chand Hem Raj & Ors vs Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union ... on 5 October, 1971
It is settled legal position that if the rules do not permit certain action no mandamus can be issued to the authorities to act against the rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Narinder Hemraj vs. Lt. Governor of Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh reported in 1971 (2) SCC 747 was pleased to observed that power of making rules is a power of legislation delegated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Just as a mandamus cannot be issued to the Legislature to enact a particular law, no mandamus can be issued to the executive to frame particular rule or make amendment therein.
Mahesh Kumar K. Parmar And Ors. vs S.I.G. Of Police And Ors. on 8 February, 2002
In the case of Mahesh Kumar K. Parmar & others vs. S.I.G. of Police & others reported in 2002 (9) SCC 458, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the case of certain Head Constables of the Gujarat Police who were drafted into the Intelligence Bureau which was set up as separated organization by the State Government. They continued for long in the Intelligence Bureau even after rules were framed separately for recruitment, service conditions etc. of the Intelligence Bureau. Then they were repatriated to the parent organization. The petitioner's grievance was that since they could be brought into Intelligence Bureau by way of transfer in accordance with rules, and they have already rendered service for long, much beyond their initial deputation period, they have acquired a right to be permanently absorbed in the Bureau, or at least they have a legitimate expectation to be so absorbed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the arguments on the ground that the State Government never contemplated a permanent absorption of the existing employees on deputation and since the nature of their transfer of service was that of deputation, the employer has always a right to repatriate the deputationist to the parent organization. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that since there is no enforceable right of the petitioners to be permanently absorbed in the borrowing department, no mandamus can be issued in this regard.
Kunal Nanda vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 April, 2000
In the case of Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (5) SCC 362 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case of C.R.P.F. Personnel taken on deputation to the C.B.I. held that deputationist cannot assert and succeed in his claim for permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation, unless his claim is based upon a statutory rule, regulation or order having the force of law. A deputationist can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department at the instance either of the borrowing department or the parent department. There is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation to get absorbed in the borrowing department.
State Of Orissa vs Ram Chandra Dev & Anr on 25 November, 1963
The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the Division Bench in its anxiety .... to help the respondents .... seems to have stretched the principle of promissory estoppel beyond tolerable limits. Undoubtedly, while exercising extraordinary original jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the High Court ought to have come to the rescue of those who are victims of injustice, but not at the cost of well established legal principles." The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter referred to Constitution Bench decision in the case of State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SCC 685 wherein it was held that "although an appropriate order can be issued in favour of party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right is legal, and is invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition under Article 226." The Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred to various other decisions and came to conclusion that the Division Bench committed an error of law in concluding that there was a breach of principles of promissory estoppel/ equitable estoppel.
Government Of Maharashtra And Ors vs M/S. Deokar'S Distillery on 10 March, 2003
In the case of Government of Maharashtra vs. Deokar's Distillery reported in 2003 (5) SCC 669 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when writ petitions are filed challenging only consequential orders without challenging the original orders by which the cause of action arose, such writ petitions deserve to be dismissed as not maintainable.
M/S Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 17 October, 2008
In support of her submission a reference has been made to the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs. Bachhitter Singh, 1962 (Suppl) (3) SCC 713; and Sethi Auto Service Station vs. Delhi Development Authority 2009 (1) SCC 180.
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Inder Singh & Ors. Etc on 14 October, 1997
In the case of Inder Singh (supra) the respondent therein had worked for nearly 20 to 28 years in the C.I.D. and, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court suggested that since the nature of work in the police department as well as the C.I.D. was almost similar and the respondents-petitioners therein had earned considerable experience working in the C.I.D., the government could consider the absorption of such employees. However, the caveat was that the rules permitted such absorption. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the authority competent to decide whether an assignment is of deputation is the authority which controls the service or the post from which such employee is transferred.
M.D.,M/S T.Nadu Magnesite Ltd vs S.Manickam & Ors on 29 March, 2010
More recently in the case of M/s. T. Nadu Magnesite Ltd. vs. S. Manickam reported in 2010 AIR SCW 3311 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case of certain employees of Tanmag a Government Company, the appellant before the Supreme Court. The respondents were duly selected and appointed on their respective posts in the aforesaid company. Soon, however, they became in excess of the cadre strength in Tanmag and were called upon to express their willingness to work in another Joint Venture Company wherein Tanmag had 20% of share and also administrative control. The respondents opted for such transfer without any monetary loss and alteration of service conditions with seniority and other benefits. Soon, however, the Joint Venture Company ran into difficulties and was closed down. The respondents had already became employees of the Joint Venture Company and they had lost their lien in the original company, appellant -Tanmag. The respondents filed a writ petition for being absorbed in Tanmag. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. However, the Division Bench allowed the appeal on the submission made by the respondents that they are entitled to be taken back in Tanmag in terms of the earlier transfer order, which protected the service conditions of the respondents. The division Bench lost sight of the vital fact that there was a permanent transfer of service entailing loss of lien. On the basis of vague arguments advanced regarding legitimate expectation, the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the respondents.
1