Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.32 seconds)
The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... vs Shri. Prakash Motiram Keny And Ors on 28 April, 2016 cites

Scientific Advisor To Raksha Mantri & ... vs V. M. Joseph on 14 January, 1998

36 of 50 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:01:04 ::: skc 37 JUDGMENT-WP-9051-13-GROUP been allowed on request, the employee concerned merely loses his seniority, but the same by itself would not lead to a conclusion that he should be deprived of the other benefits including his experience and eligibility for promotion. In terms of the Schemes aforementioned, promotion is to be granted for avoiding stagnation only within the said parties. The said Schemes have been framed because they are beneficial ones and are thus required to be implemented. The Scheme merely perused that any person having rendered 16/26 years of service without obtaining any promotion could be entitled to the benefit therefor. It is, therefore, not a case where promotion to the higher post is to be made only on the basis of seniority. Even in a case where the promotion is to be made on selection basis, the employee concerned, even if he be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in terms of the order of transfer based in his favour, he cannot be deprived of being considered for promotion to the next higher post if he is eligible therefor. This aspect of the matter is clearly covered by the three decisions of this Court, namely, A.P. SEB v. R. Parthasarathi [(1998) 9 SCC 425 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1195], Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri v. V.M. Joseph [(1998)5 SCC 305 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1362] and Renu Mullick v. Union of India [ (1994) 1 SCC 373 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 570: (1994) 26 ATC 602].
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 142 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

A.P. State Electricity Board And Others vs R. Parthasarathi And Others on 11 August, 1997

36 of 50 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:01:04 ::: skc 37 JUDGMENT-WP-9051-13-GROUP been allowed on request, the employee concerned merely loses his seniority, but the same by itself would not lead to a conclusion that he should be deprived of the other benefits including his experience and eligibility for promotion. In terms of the Schemes aforementioned, promotion is to be granted for avoiding stagnation only within the said parties. The said Schemes have been framed because they are beneficial ones and are thus required to be implemented. The Scheme merely perused that any person having rendered 16/26 years of service without obtaining any promotion could be entitled to the benefit therefor. It is, therefore, not a case where promotion to the higher post is to be made only on the basis of seniority. Even in a case where the promotion is to be made on selection basis, the employee concerned, even if he be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in terms of the order of transfer based in his favour, he cannot be deprived of being considered for promotion to the next higher post if he is eligible therefor. This aspect of the matter is clearly covered by the three decisions of this Court, namely, A.P. SEB v. R. Parthasarathi [(1998) 9 SCC 425 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1195], Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri v. V.M. Joseph [(1998)5 SCC 305 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1362] and Renu Mullick v. Union of India [ (1994) 1 SCC 373 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 570: (1994) 26 ATC 602].
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 85 - G N Ray - Full Document

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

48] In Pratap Kishore Panda vs. Agni Charan Das20, the issue arose as to whether the grant of benefit of regularisation to employees who were recruited without involving Orissa Public Service Commission (OPSC) was legal and valid, considering in particular, the decision of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after adverting to the fact situation ruled that such regularisation from the date of initial appointment was legal and valid, particularly since the recruitment made was neither capricious nor arbitrary, even though, the OPSC was not involved in the recruitment process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that this was not a case of ad hoc employees being selected in a whimsical, inconsistent or haphazard manner or in order to favour some individuals. The incumbents were sponsored by employment exchange and over 400 candidates were found suitable by duly constituted selection committee which interviewed them. It 19 M/s. Mideast Integrated Steel Limited and anr. Vs. State of Odisha - W.P.(C) No. 17403 of 2012 decided on 16-12-2015, by Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. D.H. Waghela and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswanath Rath 20 2016 (2) ALL MR 461 (S.C.) 21 (2006) 4 SCC 1 47 of 50 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:01:04 ::: skc 48 JUDGMENT-WP-9051-13-GROUP was not a relaxation of the rules in order to favour a few, but was the consequence of following an alternate method of selection intended to remedy a malady in the recruitment of SC/ST candidates. The sponsorship of employment exchange and subsequent interview by a duly constituted selection committee was itself a valid alternate for recruitment by way of OPSC competitive examination. For this purpose, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also made reference to the provisions contained in Article 320(4) of the Constitution of India and Section 9 (4) of O.R.V. Act. In this batch of petitions also, we are concerned with the appointment of respondents employees appointed to permanent, clear, substantive and sanctioned vacancies, though on temporary basis consequent upon sponsorship of their names by employment exchange and in pursuance of selection process which was fair, transparent and above board. Such respondent - employees, right from the date of their initial appointment have been extended benefits of regular pay scale, increments, leave, transfer, GPF etc. The services of such respondent - employees from the date of their initial appointment has been taken into consideration for practically all purposes, including pensionary benefits (except perhaps seniority).
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next