Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)
Raghu Nath Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 January, 2000 cites

Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash vs The Union Of India And Others on 12 September, 1961

It is argued that in the aforesaid order dated 21.1.99 it had been held that the decision to retire applicant prematurely under the provisions of FR 56(J) was not TENABLE since the provision of that rule had not been judiciously invoked, which fully brought applicant's case within the above proviso to FR 56(jj)(i), and in an identical case of Shri Jai Prakash Gupta v. U.O.I., 1988(2) ATR 34 (Copy at Annexure A-14), the Court had directed payment of pay and allowances for the intervening period. Other cases have also been cited in support of this reasoning.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 164 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

M.A. Ravoof vs Senior Divisional Signal ... on 6 November, 1997

7. There is merit in these submissions of Shri Sant Lal. It is clear that by holding that applicants premature retirement under the proviso of FR 56(j) were not tenable, since the provisions of that rule had not been judiciously invoked, applicant's case falls within the proviso to FR 56(jj)(i) cited above. The ruling in Ravoof's case (supra) relied upon by Shri Bansal was with respect to the specific guidelines dated 15.11.75 issued by the Railway Board to General Managers of all Indian Railways, but this is a case of the Indian Postal Department where those guidelines have no application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1