Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.72 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hari Ram Kakkar vs Union Of India And Others on 1 June, 2001
13. The Order of this Tribunal in R.S.Kakkar (supra) (wherein the case of Hoshiar Singh (supra) also was referred to), relied upon by the applicants counsel, would not help to the case of the applicant as the facts and circumstances of the said case are distinguishable from the case of the applicant. In R.S.Kakkars case, the Review Committee had not considered the overall performance of the applicant during the last five years nor had the totality of the service record been assessed and, therefore, the orders of premature retirement were set aside. That is not the case here. In Hoshiar Singhs case (supra) the order of the compulsory retirement was issued by a lower authority than the competent authority, but in the present case it is categorically stated by the respondents that the Department of Postal Authorities is the competent authority and he had issued the orders and the applicant has also not established that the DPS is a lower rank than Sr. Manager.
Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr vs Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada ... on 19 February, 1992
In Baikuntha v. C.D.M.O., (1992) 2 SCC 299 it was held as under:
Post And Telegraph Board And Ors vs C.S.N. Murthy on 26 March, 1992
The Honble Apex Court has also held in Post and Telegraph Board v. Murthy, (1992) 2 SCC 317, Paragraph 5, that even an adverse report for a single year may constitute sufficient material for the Government to come to a decision that the employees standard of work was not satisfactory, and that he should, therefore, be retired. The reason is that the nature of the delinquency, and whether it is of such a nature as to require compulsory retirement, is for the departmental authorities to decide. The court will not interfere with the exercise of that power except on the ground of mala fide, etc.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
State Of Rajasthan vs Shiv Lahari Sharma on 6 December, 1991
In State of Rajasthan v. Shiv, AIR 1992 SC 1587 (Paragraphs 8 and 9), a 3 Judges Bench held that where an order of compulsory retirement has become final by an appellate order but the petitioner prays for reconsideration of that order, what is to be determined by the authority (or Tribunal) on such prayer, is not whether the order of compulsory retirement was vitiated on merits (as is done while hearing an appeal), but whether the conditions for reconsideration, according to the relevant Rules or circulars, were fulfilled.
1