Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
Manoranjan Mandal vs Ordnance Factory on 11 August, 2022 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs A. Durairaj (Dead) on 1 December, 2010

5. Admittedly, seniority in the grades of Skilled and High Skilled is basis and the promotion to C.M. is the genesis. The applicant for the first time submitted representation on 30.08.2018 praying for notional seniority w.e.f. 27.07.1993 and 27.07.1996. The statute clearly provides period of limitation, which the Tribunal cannot overlook is the trite position of law. It appears that the relief which the applicants are not entitled to directly seek to get in an indirect manner. It is well settled that anyone who feels aggrieved by non-promotion or non-selection should approach the Court/Tribunal as early as possible. If a person having a justifiable grievance allows the matter to become stale and approaches the Court/Tribunal belatedly grant of any relief on the basis of such belated application would lead to serious administrative complications to the employer and difficulties to the other employees as it will upset the settled position regarding seniority and 6 M.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 O.A.No. 260/00503 of 2019 promotions which has been granted to others over the years. Further, where a claim is raised beyond a decade or two from the date of cause of action, the employer will be a great disadvantage of effectively contest or counter the claim, as the officers who dealt with the matter and/or the relevant records relating to the matter may no longer be available. Therefore, even if no period of limitation is prescribed, any belated challenge would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches vide Union of India & Others Vs A. Durairaj (dead) by LRs in Civil Appeal No. 1783 OF 2005 disposed of on 1 December, 2010.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 131 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

State Of U.P. And Anr vs Dinkar Sinha on 9 May, 2007

"16. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, proceeded on the basis as to what would constitute a substantive appointment. The decisions of this Court, whereupon strong reliance has been placed by the High Court in arriving at its conclusion may not be of much significance but what is significant is that in the writ petition even Savita (Mohan) Dhondyal and others who lose their seniority in the event writ petition was to be allowed, were not impleaded as parties. They, in our opinion, should have been impleaded as parties in the writ application. Savita (Mohan) Dhondyal and others, if the writ petition is allowed, would suffer civil consequences. Inter se seniority may not be a fundamental right, but is a civil right. (See State of U.P. v. Dinkar Sinha [(2007) 10 SCC 548 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 38 : (2007) 7 Scale 8] .) The respective rights of seniority of the parties, thus, required determination in their presence."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 35 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Rajeev Ranjan Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 April, 2018

9. Importing the principles of joinder of parties under Order 1, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the writ jurisdiction, the Hon'ble 9 M.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 O.A.No. 260/00503 of 2019 Supreme Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported at (2014) 16 SCC 187, again highlighted the necessity of impleading the persons who would be affected as a result of the writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to grant relief to the petitioners on account of failure to implead necessary parties after considering good authority in point, stating:
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 36 - A K Tripathi - Full Document

Jagir Singh vs Ranbir Singh & And on 9 November, 1978

43. "21. It is a settled proposition of law that what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on the principle of 10 M.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 O.A.No. 260/00503 of 2019 quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud. An authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by 'shift or contrivance'." (See Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh9, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath10 and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 83 - O C Reddy - Full Document

M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 13 December, 1996

43. "21. It is a settled proposition of law that what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on the principle of 10 M.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 O.A.No. 260/00503 of 2019 quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud. An authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by 'shift or contrivance'." (See Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh9, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath10 and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 356 - K Singh - Full Document

Sant Lal Gupta & Ors vs Modern Coop. G.H. Society Ltd. & Ors on 18 October, 2010

43. "21. It is a settled proposition of law that what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on the principle of 10 M.A.No. 260/00131 of 2020 O.A.No. 260/00503 of 2019 quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud. An authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by 'shift or contrivance'." (See Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh9, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath10 and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 263 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next