Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.91 seconds)
Rishu Kumar Dwivedi & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 January, 2017 cites

Maharashtra State Road Trans.Corp. ... vs Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari ... on 28 August, 2009

In the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (supra) the employees were required to work for 8 hours a day for a paltry amount even when the work discharged was of a permanent nature. The industrial court in consideration of the fact that though there were post of sweeper and cleaner available in the Corporation yet employees were kept on casual Patna High Court CWJC No.11550 of 2016 dt.24-01-2017 713 and temporary basis for years together denying them permanency pronounced the award granting status and wages together with benefits of permanency attached to the post of cleaners to those employees which was affirmed by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court in consideration of the nature of the job discharged, the continuity of service and the post available. Such is not the case here.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 720 - R M Lodha - Full Document

S.N. Rajkumar vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board . on 22 February, 2016

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in CWJC No.12855 of 2016 and some Patna High Court CWJC No.11550 of 2016 dt.24-01-2017 687 other writ petitions has referred to the advertisement to submit that while the applications were invited from the candidates for their engagement as Accredited Statistical Volunteers, a complete selection process followed and a panel was prepared. With reference to the impugned Cabinet decision he submits that since the panel was not prepared by the Cooperative department rather it was done by the Planning and Development department in its Directorate of Economics and Statistics, there was no role for the Cooperative department nor the decision taken by them could affect the petitioners. With reference to the notification dated 26.7.2016 of the Planning and Development department brought on record vide Annexure ‗C' to the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No.11550 of 2016 he submits that even when there is no such proposal in the department for cancellation of the panel, the Planning and Development department has mechanically endorsed the decision of the Cooperative department. According to learned counsel, a panel is exhausted no sooner the appointment is made and thus there was no occasion for cancellation of panel. He submits that once a decision is taken for constitution of a committee to consider the grievance of the ‗ASVs', then steps for regularisation should have been taken. In support of his submission learned counsel refers to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the writ petition Patna High Court CWJC No.11550 of 2016 dt.24-01-2017 688 in CWJC No.12855 of 2016 to submit that a committee was constituted by the State Government in May, 2015 and who was to give their report on regularisation of services of the ‗ASVs'. According to learned counsel, there is no foundation for a decision to cancel the panel and once the Cabinet has taken a decision for regularisation, then the authorities are precluded from interference with the panel on the principles of promissory estoppel. Learned counsel in support has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1986 BLJR 408 (SC) (S.N. Yadav Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board) more particularly paragraphs 3, 4 and 7.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 184 - Full Document

Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990

The facts accompanying the case of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra) is entirely distinct to the facts involved herein Patna High Court CWJC No.11550 of 2016 dt.24-01-2017 709 and the most distinguishing feature is that whereas the said case related to appointment of Government Counsel in the State of U.P., in the present case it is an empanelment of the petitioners with clear stipulation that they would be allotted work as and when the need would arise. It is certainly not a case of appointment against any post or for salary/emolument.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1487 - J S Verma - Full Document

Oryx Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 October, 2010

Learned counsel has next referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427 Patna High Court CWJC No.11550 of 2016 dt.24-01-2017 690 (Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India) to submit that orders determining inter-party rights has to be backed by reasons. According to learned counsel, even a policy decision cannot be taken on whims and any such decision is liable to be struck down.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 668 - Full Document

Ram And Shyam Company vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 May, 1985

Learned counsel in support of such proposition has made reference to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1985 SC 1147 (Ram & Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana). It is the argument of Mr. Singh that a reason not reflecting in the decision, cannot be supplemented by affidavits. In support of his submission learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1978 SC 851:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 808 - D A Desai - Full Document

Nihal Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 August, 2013

In fact in the words of the Supreme Court as found in the judgment of the Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) and Nihal Singh (supra), any direction by this Court in the circumstances discussed, either for continuation of the panel or for considering the cases of these petitioners for regularisation, in absence of facts supporting continuity of discharge, would amount to a direction for creation of post as well as financial liability which is neither in the domain nor within the framework of judicial review.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 491 - Full Document
1   2 Next