Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.56 seconds)
K Vijayalakshmi vs The Chairman And Managing Director Bsnl ... on 22 March, 2024 cites

Union Of India & Anr vs K.N. Sivadas & Ors on 1 August, 1997

The judgment in Ashwani Kumar & Ors. (supra) was not applicable, as RTPs are no way similar to Casual Labourers as found in K.N.Sivadas & Ors. (supra). Subsequent to this judgment, the Ministry of Communication had issued a direction on 17.03.1998 in relation to implementation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in C.A.Nos.80-123/1996 dated 01.08.1997. It was categorically laid down that any service rendered prior to regular appointment in the cadre, cannot count for the purpose of this rule, as it cannot be considered as service in an eligible cadre. Thus, the contention that the period of 'casual' service of the applicants up to regularization has to be reckoned for the purpose of regularization of service with consequential benefits cannot be acceded to. In other words, the 1983 notification on which the applicants have laid great stress does not prove anything in relation to the vacancies, which might have existed as many of the applicants in these O.As were not even in service at that time. As noted, documents relating to the issue are being produced after 41 years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 26 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Ashwani Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 1996

The judgment in Ashwani Kumar & Ors. (supra) was not applicable, as RTPs are no way similar to Casual Labourers as found in K.N.Sivadas & Ors. (supra). Subsequent to this judgment, the Ministry of Communication had issued a direction on 17.03.1998 in relation to implementation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in C.A.Nos.80-123/1996 dated 01.08.1997. It was categorically laid down that any service rendered prior to regular appointment in the cadre, cannot count for the purpose of this rule, as it cannot be considered as service in an eligible cadre. Thus, the contention that the period of 'casual' service of the applicants up to regularization has to be reckoned for the purpose of regularization of service with consequential benefits cannot be acceded to. In other words, the 1983 notification on which the applicants have laid great stress does not prove anything in relation to the vacancies, which might have existed as many of the applicants in these O.As were not even in service at that time. As noted, documents relating to the issue are being produced after 41 years.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 698 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

M/S. A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. .. ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors. .. Respondents on 14 December, 2006

7. In this connection, the learned counsel for the respondent/BSNL in O.A.No.180/354/2018 and O.A.No.180/492/2018 also pointed out to the fact that this issue had come up on the first day of listing of the O.As concerned. The notice had been taken up by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent/BSNL pointing out that they had serious objections regarding the delay that has occurred in filing the O.A. He had then prayed for leaving open the issue of delay to be considered by this Tribunal and the O.As were admitted recording the aforesaid submission. Hence, the issue of delay in the O.As is a live issue agitated right from the date that the O.As had been filed. The respondents then relied on A.P.Steel Re-rolling Mill Ltd., vs. State of Kerala & Ors. & Connected cases, (2007) 2 SCC 725, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the benefit of a judgment is not extended to a case automatically if there is long delay in approaching the Court. The same may disentitle the party to obtain discretionary relief.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 229 - S B Sinha - Full Document

S.S. Balu And Anr vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 13 January, 2009

A similar position was reiterated in S.S.Balu & Anr. vs. State of Kerala & Ors., 2009 (2) SCC 479 wherein it was held that "Delay defeats equity. Relief can be denied on the ground of delay even though relief is granted to other similarly situated person who approached the court in time." Thus, in view of the law laid down in these judgments, it is submitted that all the O.As were liable -47- to be dismissed. Moreover, the applicants have not given any valid reason as to why this inordinate delay occurred in approaching the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 436 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs M.M. Sarkar on 8 December, 2009

The Hon'ble Apex Court then observed in paragraph 15 of M.K.Sarkar (supra) that when a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the -52- Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 716 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

C.Jacob vs Director Of Geology & ... on 3 October, 2008

It noted that the Court had already considered the issue in C.Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining (2008) 10 SCC 115 wherein it was observed that when the representation was considered and rejected the ex-employee filed an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000 as the cause of action. A prayer was then made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. It was noted that the Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions, ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation and also proceed to examine the claim on merit and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 493 - Full Document

Rabindra Nath Bose & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 October, 1969

Learned counsel then pointed to Rabindra Nath Bose & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1970 (1) SCC 84 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that there was a limit to the time which could be considered reasonable for making representations. If the Government has turned down one representation, the making of another representation on similar lines would not enable the petitioners to explain the delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 195 - S M Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next