Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.33 seconds)
Shri Naresh Chand Gupta vs The Union Of India (Through Secretary) on 14 December, 2012 cites

E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973

56. Now, the question immediately arises as to what is the requirement of Article 14: What is the content and reach of the great equalising principle enunciated in this article? There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution. It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic. And, therefore, it must not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach. No attempt should be made to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits. We must reiterate here what was pointed out by the majority in E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 2 SCR 348: (AIR 1974 SCS 555) namely, that "from a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14". Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 1821 - A N Ray - Full Document

Dkshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors vs Bachan Singh on 30 July, 2009

3. It is true that the applicants were not parties to the Civil Writ Petition which was allowed by the Tribunal. But there is no reason not to extend benefit of that judgment to the applicants who are similarly placed as petitioners in T-335/85. In fact instead of driving each of senior computers to seek redressal of grievances before the Tribunal, each judgment on T-335/85 had become final. The respondents should have extended the benefit of that judgment to the entire class of computers similarly placed. The respondents would be advised to direct the department to extend the benefit of the judgment of Courts and tribunal which have become final to all employees similarly placed and not drive each of them to seek redressal of their grievances before the Tribunal. When applicants are similarly placed and governed by the same rules, the benefit as extended to the petitioners in T-335/85, should have been extended to them also. Not extending similar benefit would amount itself to a discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Emphasis supplied) In the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Others v. Bachan Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 793, the Honble Apex Court observed that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 238 - D Bhandari - Full Document

R.K. Khanna & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 December, 2011

It must be 'right and just and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. In A.K.Khanna & Others v. Union of India & Others, ATR 1988 (2) CAT 518, this Tribunal while observing that not extending similar benefit to persons similarly situated would amount itself to a discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, held as under:
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - V Kothari - Full Document

Union Of India vs R.Sreedharan on 21 June, 2011

FAX/SPEED POST Most Urgent Office of the C.G.D.A., Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt.  110 010. No.AN/XIV/14142/SLP-14167/2009/R.Sridharan Dated 19/02/2010 To The PCDA (O), Pune The PCD (Fys) Kolkata The PCDA (Navy) Mumbai The PCDA (SC) Pune The PCDA (AF) Dehradun The PCDA Bangalore The CDA (R&D) Bangalore The CDA Chennai The CDA Secunderabad Sub:- SLP No.14167/2009 (in WP  20774/2003/OA 260/2002 filed by Sh. R.Sridharan and 24 others vs. UOI & Others) UOI & Others v/s R.Sridharan & Others. Ref:- This Hqrs. Office letter No.even dated 03/12/2009.
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document
1