Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.37 seconds)
Chhavi Lal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 October, 2023 cites

The State Of Gujarat vs Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel on 18 February, 2022

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh v. State of U.P.: (2019) 10 SCC 516 and also in the case of State of Gujarat and others v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.- 1109 of 2022 decided on 18th February, 2022 and Kaushal Kishore Chaubey and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and others (Writ - A No.- 5817 of 2020) decided on 08.10.2021.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Kaushal Kishore Chaubey And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 8 October, 2021

6. He further submits that the judgment in Kaushal Kishore Chaubey (supra) has been referred to larger bench under order dated 26.05.2022 passed in Writ A No. 2344 of 2018, Ashok Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Others. However, upon pointed query, he replied that larger bench is yet to be constituted. Thus he would not deny that legal position stands that mere reference to larger bench does not amount to overruling of of a judgment by a co-ordinate bench and judgment would continue to be a good law until reversed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 103 - S Srivastava - Full Document

Lalla Singh Chouhan And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 8 ... on 1 February, 2018

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel argues that the Seasonal Collection peon is permitted to discharge duties only for a limited period of time and cannot be said to have been in a continuous services. It is submitted that their attendance is taken as of regular employee. They have also relied upon recent judgment passed in review application filed by the Board of Revenue delivered on 31s May, 2023 in Civil Misc. Review Application No.121 of 2022, State Of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl.Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others v Ram Kesh Sharma and other connected matters in respect of leading order passed in Special Appeal (Def.) No. 84 of 2023.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 141 - Full Document

Uday Pratap Thakur And Anr. vs The State Of Bihar on 28 April, 2023

6.2. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellants that their entire services rendered as work charged should be considered and/or counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. If the same is accepted, in that case, it would tantamount to regularizing their services from the initial appointment as work charged. As per the catena of decisions of this Court, there is always a difference and distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work charged employee working under work charged establishment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 41 - M R Shah - Full Document
1