Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
Gulam M Ghanchi vs D/O Post on 8 March, 2018 cites

Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 December, 2012

argument placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another [(2003) SCC (L&S) 20] to submit that retirement benefits could not be denied once termination was set aside and consequential benefits needs to be granted by considering the employee to be in continuity of service. He further relies on a decision rendered by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No. 1272 of 2010 wherein this Hon‟ble High Court held that in case of reinstatement, continuity of service is impliedly included.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 17 - R S Malik - Full Document

Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2005

-18- OA/336/2015 CAT, Ahmedabad Bench the order of removal, the petitioner gets back to his position as prevailing on the date of his removal. On such reinstatement, the punishment of removal gets merged with the substituted order of lower penalty of withholding of increments. The learned counsel for the applicant has rightly placed reliance on the decision in Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2003) SCC (L&S) 20 to submit that the direction to reinstate in service on setting aside the order of termination, therefore the right to claim continuity of service sustains. Therefore, the stand of respondents that as per the instructions contained in Rule 6(15) of GDS (C&E) 2011 the past service of the applicant cannot be counted because the applicant was taken back on service on 24.06.2004, the applicant is required to be considered as re-appointee in the service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 198 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

P.B. Kunhammad vs State Of Kerala on 28 July, 2009

-22- OA/336/2015 CAT, Ahmedabad Bench applicant can be said only for the purpose of payment of wages and not to be counting the continuity of the service. By the order of reinstatement to his original position of the employee, the punishment of removal gets substituted. In this regard, it is apt to notice the settled principle of law that an order of disciplinary authority merges into the order of appellate authority or with reviewing authority as the case may be. The same principle would apply to the judicial proceedings. This is based on a doctrine of merger. (refers the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Mi Gojer Brothers (P) Ltd. Vs. Shri Ratan Lal Singh reported in AIR 1974 SC 1380 and in the case of Kunhayammad and others vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2000 SC 2587).
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - T Joseph - Full Document
1