Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015
14. It is also to be noted that the applicants have also not raised objections to the
conditions stipulated when they have accepted the appointment on Short Duty
service, prior to absorption as RTPs. Neither the policy has been objected at any
point of time. Furthermore, when some of the applicants have made an attempt for
seeking regularization from the date of their initial appointment in earlier round of
litigation i.e. after absorption, vide its order dated 21.1.1999, this Tribunal has
negatived relief and has granted limited relief regarding pay scale as referred to
above. It is also to be noted that the applicants have accepted the said order and
have not challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court. Almost after more
than 20 years, referring to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of Ernakulam,
they have submitted their representation. Therefore, the OA is hopelessly barred
by limitation, apart from being hit by res judicata.
Union Of India & Ors vs A. Durairaj (Dead) on 1 December, 2010
15. It is also to be noted that, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its
judgment dated 01.12.2010 in CA No. 1783/2005 titled as Union of India & Ors v.
A. Durairaj, "even if no period of limitation is prescribed, any belated challenge
would be liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches".
Chennai Metropolitan Water ... vs T.T. Murali Babu on 10 February, 2014
13. Reiterating the aspect of delay and laches would disentitle the
discretionary relief being granted, this Court in the case of Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali
Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held:
Mrinmoy Maity vs Chhanda Koley on 26 November, 2018
Very recently,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 5027 of 2024, in the matter of
Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley & Others, observed as under:
1