Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
W/O. vs Venugopal, on 5 December, 2016 cites

Bhoop Alleged Son Of Sheo vs Matadin Bhardwaj Son Of Lakmi Chand on 4 December, 1990

In Bhoop Vs. Matadin Bhardwaj (1991) 2 SCC 128 and in Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. Union of India (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 363, the Apex Court had taken the stand that the mistake or delay on the part of the department should not be permitted to recoil on the party. In the present case, the applicants are made to suffer solely on account of the illegal abolition of posts right from 2003 onwards.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 31 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 September, 1990

In Bhoop Vs. Matadin Bhardwaj (1991) 2 SCC 128 and in Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. Union of India (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 363, the Apex Court had taken the stand that the mistake or delay on the part of the department should not be permitted to recoil on the party. In the present case, the applicants are made to suffer solely on account of the illegal abolition of posts right from 2003 onwards.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 155 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Y.Najithamol & Ors vs Soumya S.D.& Ors on 12 August, 2016

In this regard respondent submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.90/2015 (Y.Najithamol & Ors. Vs. Soumya S.D. & Ors.) upheld that selection of Extra Departmental Agents or Gramin Dak Sevaks to the post of Postman under Column 11 (2) (ii) of the Recruitment Rules is only by way of Direct Recruitment and not by way of promotion. Hence resotration of already abolished post would not arise.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 104 - V G Gowda - Full Document
1