Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.47 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 64 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 59 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 59 in The Factories Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs G. C. Mandawar on 13 May, 1954
"4.1 The High Court has taken the view that the
educational qualifications cannot be a ground for denial
of Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurse who
can also be said to be an integral part of the nursing
service in general. The view taken by the High Court is
just contrary to the decisions of this Court in the case of
Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation
Limited (supra), Pramod Kumar Sahoo (supra) and
T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao (supra).
State Of H.P & Ors vs Rajesh Chander Sood Etc Etc on 28 September, 2016
In State Of H.P & Ors vs Rajesh Chander Sood
Etc on 28.09.2016 (2016 (10) SCC 77), the Apex Court
observed as under:
State Of Assam vs Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha on 17 March, 2009
"58. We are of the considered view, that the principle of
estoppel/promissory estoppel cannot be invoked at the
hands of the respondent-employees, in the facts and
circumstances of this case. It is not as if the rights
which had accrued to the respondent-employees under
the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1995 (under
which the respondent- employees were governed, prior
to their being governed by 'the 1999 Scheme') have in
any manner been altered to their disadvantage. All that
was taken away, and given up by the respondent-
employees by way of foregoing the employer's
contribution upto 31.3.1999 (including, the accrued
interest thereon), by way of transfer to the corpus fund,
was restored to the respondent-employees. All the
respondent-employees, who have been deprived of their
pensionary claims by the repeal notification dated
2.12.2004, would be entitled to all the rights which had
accrued to them, under the Employees' Provident Funds
Scheme, 1995. It is therefore, not possible for us to
accept, that the respondent-employees can be stated to
have been made to irretrievably alter their position, to
their detriment. Furthermore, all the corporate bodies
(with which the respondent-employees, are engaged)
are independent juristic entities, as held in State of
Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari
Sanstha (supra). The mere fact, that the corporate
bodies under reference, are fully controlled by the State
Government, and the State Government is the ultimate
authority to determine their conditions of service, under
their Articles of Association, is inconsequential.
Undoubtedly, the respondent- employees are not
Government employees. The State Government, as a
welfare measure, had ventured to honestly extend
some post-retiral benefits to employees of such
independent legal entities, on the mistaken belief,
arising out of a miscalculation, that the same can be
catered to, out of available resources. This measure
was adopted by the State Government, not in its
capacity as the employer of the respondent-employees,
but as a welfare measure. When it became apparent,
that the welfare measure extended by the State
Government, could not be sustained as originally
understood, the same was sought to be withdrawn.
M/S.Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders vs Sr.Superin.Of Post Office,Meerut on 10 October, 2014
We are of the view that the principle invoked on behalf
of the respondent-employees, cannot be applied in the
facts of the present case, specially, in view of the
decision in M/s. Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders v. Senior
Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut, AIR 2015 SC
901, wherein this Court held as under:-