State Of U.P vs Dayanand Chakrawarty & Ors on 2 July, 2013
In Dayanand Chakrawarty [State of
U.P. v. Dayanand Chakrawarty, (2013) 7 SCC 595 :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Harwindra Kumar vs Chief Engineer, Karmik & Ors on 18 November, 2005
(2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 791] the Court directed payment of
arrears deeming the employees to have worked till sixty
years in spite of no interim order being issued in that
regard because (i) the Office Memorandum was held
ultra vires; (ii) Harwindra Kumar [Harwindra
Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik, (2005) 13 SCC 300 :
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B. Bharat Kumar & Ors vs Osmania University & Ors on 7 May, 2007
Insofar as the issue with regard to the applicability of
G.O.Ms.No.39 Higher Education (U.E) Department dated
29.07.2023 with retrospective effect, this Court is of the view
that this issue is squarely covered by the Judgment rendered by
the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dr. Prakasan M P and Others‟s case
and the other two Judgments cited by the Learned Government
Pleader for Higher Education (in B. Bharat Kumar and Others
Vs. Osmania University and Others ((2007) 11 SCC 58) and
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Another
Vs. B.D. Singhal and Others ((2021) 17 SCC 435) would also
squarely apply to the facts of this case.
New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs B.D. Singhal on 15 July, 2021
Insofar as the issue with regard to the applicability of
G.O.Ms.No.39 Higher Education (U.E) Department dated
29.07.2023 with retrospective effect, this Court is of the view
that this issue is squarely covered by the Judgment rendered by
the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Dr. Prakasan M P and Others‟s case
and the other two Judgments cited by the Learned Government
Pleader for Higher Education (in B. Bharat Kumar and Others
Vs. Osmania University and Others ((2007) 11 SCC 58) and
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Another
Vs. B.D. Singhal and Others ((2021) 17 SCC 435) would also
squarely apply to the facts of this case.
Section 31 in Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 [Entire Act]
Section 78A in Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 [Entire Act]
Chairman, U.P.Jal Nigam & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Anr on 10 November, 2006
2006 SCC (L&S) 1063] , Jaswant Singh [U.P. Jal
Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 : (2007) 1
SCC (L&S) 500] , and Radhey Shyam Gautam [U.P. Jal
Nigam v. Radhey Shyam Gautam, (2007) 11 SCC 507 :
(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 59] had already held that the age of
retirement of the Jal Nigam employees shall be 60 years
unless a regulation prescribing a lower retirement age is
issued in terms of Regulation 31, and had extended this
benefit to all the parties who had filed writ petitions.
Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam And Anr vs Radhey Shyam Gautam & Anr on 30 March, 2007
2006 SCC (L&S) 1063] , Jaswant Singh [U.P. Jal
Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 : (2007) 1
SCC (L&S) 500] , and Radhey Shyam Gautam [U.P. Jal
Nigam v. Radhey Shyam Gautam, (2007) 11 SCC 507 :
(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 59] had already held that the age of
retirement of the Jal Nigam employees shall be 60 years
unless a regulation prescribing a lower retirement age is
issued in terms of Regulation 31, and had extended this
benefit to all the parties who had filed writ petitions.
M.P. Oil Extraction And Anr. Etc vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors on 9 July, 1997
42. While considering the validity of the industrial policy
of the State of Madhya Pradesh relating to the
agreements entered into for supply of sal seeds for
extracting oil in M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of
M.P. [(1997) 7 SCC 592] the Court at p. 610-11 held as
follows: (SCC para 41)
"41. After giving our careful consideration to
the facts and circumstances of the case and to
the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties, it appears to us that the
Industrial Policy of 1979 which was
subsequently revised from time to time cannot
be held to be arbitrary and based on no
reason whatsoever but founded on mere ipse
dixit of the State Government of M.P. The
executive authority of the State must be held to
be within its competence to frame a policy for
the administration of the State. Unless the
policy framed is absolutely capricious and, not
being informed by any reason whatsoever, can
be clearly held to be arbitrary and founded on
mere ipse dixit of the executive functionaries
thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution
or such policy offends other constitutional
provisions or comes into conflict with any
statutory provision, the Court cannot and
should not outstep its limit and tinker with the
policy decision of the executive functionary of
the State. This Court, in no uncertain terms,
has sounded a note of caution by indicating
15
that policy decision is in the domain of the
executive authority of the State and the Court
should not embark on the unchartered ocean
of public policy and should not question the
efficacy or otherwise of such policy so long the
same does not offend any provision of the
statute or the Constitution of India. The
supremacy of each of the three organs of the
State i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary in
their respective fields of operation needs to be
emphasised. The power of judicial review of
the executive and legislative action must be
kept within the bounds of constitutional
scheme so that there may not be any occasion
to entertain misgivings about the role of
judiciary in outstepping its limit by
unwarranted judicial activism being very often
talked of in these days. The democratic set-up
to which the polity is so deeply committed
cannot function properly unless each of the
three organs appreciate the need for mutual
respect and supremacy in their respective
fields."