Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 66 (0.62 seconds)State Of H.P.& Ors vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors on 26 November, 2015
46. In view of settled law, this Court, without commenting upon
merits of pronouncements of the Supreme Court, is bound to
follow the earlier order passed by larger Bench of the Supreme
Court upholding the Rakesh Kumar's judgment, wherein persons,
like appellant, belonging to lowest cadre of the Government
service in hierarchy, have been held entitled for monetary benefits
from the due date but without interest on arrears, because they
were deprived of the benefits of the scheme/policy of the
Government on account of laxity, inaction, omission or commission
on the part of the State or its Officer/officials by not conferring work
charge status upon daily waged beldars from due date. Therefore,
we are of the considered opinion that order passed in Surajmani's
case and/or Ashwani Kumar's case, to the extent of denial of
actual monetary benefits from due date, shall have no impact on
the directions passed in Rakesh Kumar's case and thus appellant
2025:HHC:16058
...46...
Rakesh Kumar S/O Sh Ram Saran Vpo vs State Of Himachal Pradesh Through on 13 October, 2022
In fact,
in Rakesh Kumar's case, this issue was not adjudicated but without
considering Mool Raj's case and without assigning any reason, a
passing observation was made.
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The Motor & General Traders on 18 March, 1975
In P. Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders
(AIR 1976 SC 1409) this Court dealt with the adjectival
activism relating to post institution circumstances Two
propositions were laid down. Firstly, it was held that
'it is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the
right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a
suitor institutes the legal proceeding'.
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014
44. Judgment in Arvind Shrivastva case has also been affirmed
by Larger Bench (3-Judge) of the Supreme Court.
Chandra Prakash And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 4 April, 2002
In this context, a five-Judge
Bench of this Court in Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P.
[(2002) 4 SCC 234], after considering series of earlier
rulings reiterated that : (SCC p.245, para 22)
'22. ... The doctrine of binding precedent is of utmost
importance in the administration of our judicial system. It
promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions.
Judicial consistency promotes confidence in the system,
therefore, there is this need for consistency in the
enunciation of legal principles in the decisions of this
Court.' "
Mool Raj Upadhyaya vs State Of H.P on 19 April, 1994
In fact,
in Rakesh Kumar's case, this issue was not adjudicated but without
considering Mool Raj's case and without assigning any reason, a
passing observation was made.
The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Waman Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 May, 1980
"43. It is settled law that this Court should follow an
earlier decision that has withstood the changes in
time, irrespective of the rationale of the view taken. It
was held by a Constitution Bench in Waman Rao v.
Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 362: