Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)
Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir And Others vs . Imtiyaz Ahmad Laloo & Ors on 30 August, 2025 cites

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014

19 The aforesaid judgment of the Delhi High Court is fully attracted to the facts of the present case, leaving no scope for further debate on the issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 347, after surveying the case law on the subject, has held that those 12 persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same, and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in point of time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence- sitters and laches or delays and/or the acquiescence would be valid grounds to dismiss their claim. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was a judgment in rem with the intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement, the obligation is cast upon the authorities to extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can arise when the subject matter of the decision touches upon policy matters, like a scheme of regularisation or the like.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1005 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Zahoor Ahmad Khan vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 1 November, 2022

Sanjeev Kumar J 1 UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others ["petitioners herein"] are aggrieved of and have challenged a common order and judgment dated 24.08.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench ["Tribunal"] in TA No. 1591/2021 (SWP No. 2161/2018) titled Imtiyaz Ahmad Laloo & ors vs. State and others, TA No. 6533/2021 (SWP No. 594/2017) titled Zahoor Ahmad Khan vs State and others, TA No. 3629/2021 (SWP No. 2912/2018) titled Imtiyaz Ahmad Tantray vs State and others, and TA No. 6584/2021 (SWP No. 2001/2015 titled John Mohammad Wani and others vs State 2 and others, whereby the Tribunal has, while allowing the TAs of the respondents, held that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme and issued a direction to the petitioners herein to consider the case of the respondents for assigning seniority and other service benefits on a par with selectees of Advertisement Notification No.DIPK 3837 dated 19th July 2008, as per the statutory rules and settled law.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Dhar - Full Document

Neelofar Mehraj vs State Of Jk And Others on 26 September, 2016

5 Feeing aggrieved by their non-consideration under the Old Defined Pension Scheme, earlier eleven 11 similarly situate candidates who were selected in terms of another Advertisement Notification dated 07.02.2009 filed SWP No. 210 of 2016 titled Neelofar Mehraj vs State and others and 1712/2017 titled Sajad Ahmad Lone and SWP No. 1712 of 2017 Sajjad Ahmed Lone vs State and others. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by a Single Bench of this Court vide judgments dated 26.09/2016 and 25.08.2017 respectively, with a direction to the petitioners herein that the case of the writ petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions would be governed by the Pension Rules as were applicable up to 31.12.2009. The judgments passed in the aforesaid writ petitions were complied with, and the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme was extended to the petitioners therein.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next