Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Todar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru Revenue Secy. & Ors on 22 November, 2012 cites

Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr vs Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada ... on 19 February, 1992

In this regard, the fact that the Screening Committee has mentioned the adverse entry of the year 1981-82, which entry was not communicated to the petitioner does not make the compulsory retirement order fatal. The Supreme Court in Baikunth Nath Das (supra) has held that the order of compulsory retirement cannot be quashed only on the ground that uncommunicated adverse entries were taken into consideration. As stated, the relevant entries of only last 10 years was required to be considered but, while judging the conduct and performance of the petitioner, the entire service record was also taken into consideration. Consequently, if the entry of one year which was not communicated to the petitioner but was considered while making the order of compulsory retirement does not make the order illegal, inasmuch as the Court finds and is of the opinion that the overall performance which has been depicted in the report of the Screening Committee clearly indicates the inefficiency of the petitioner while discharging the official work. Consequently, the factum that the petitioner was suspended on several occasions or that he was given a warning was only to make an overall assessment of his conduct. It was the cumulative effect which led the Screening Committee to form an opinion on the subject which this Court does not find any error. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the decision so cited are irrelevant in the facts and circumstances of the given case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 579 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Shyam Lal vs 1. The State Of Uttar Pradesh2. The Union ... on 30 March, 1954

In Shyam Lal Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 369, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as it is neither a punishment nor visits with loss of retiral benefits nor does it cast any stigma and that the Officer is entitled to pension.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 225 - Full Document

Dharam Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 28 August, 2002

On the question as to whether the Fundamental Rule 56(c) is applicable or the Lekhpals Service Rules 1958 is applicable, the decision of this Court in the matter of Dharampal Singh (supra) is clearly in favour of the petitioner, namely, that the Fundamental Rules cannot be given precedent over the Lekhpals Service Rules, 1958 and that since the Lekhpals Service Rules, 1958 provides a separate provision for retiring a Lekhpal compulsorily the same can only be done under Rule 31 of the Lekhpals Service Rules, 1958 and not under Rule 56(c) of the Fundamental Rules.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - R Tiwari - Full Document

Phool Chand Yadav And Others vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 14 June, 2010

In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Phool Chand Yadav (Dr.) Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1079 wherein it was held that the adverse entries of the last 10 years were not placed before the reviewing authority and, consequently, the Court held that the order of compulsory retirement was bad in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Screening Committee had only considered the service record for certain years selectively and deliberately had not taken into consideration the service record of other years. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only adverse entries have been taken consideration whereas good entries have not been taken into consideration while considering the service record of the petitioner.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1