Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.94 seconds)
Valiben Jethabhai Bhanji vs Patan Municipality on 14 July, 2006 cites

Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970

In the case of State of Gujarat v. S.C. Shah 1999 (3) GLR 2060, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 of the decision observed that what is public interest was explained in the classic decision in the case of Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha . It was further observed that it was pointed out that the object of premature retirement of a Government servant was to weed out the inefficient, corrupt, dishonest employees from the Government service. The public interest in relation to public administration means that only honest and efficient persons are to be retained in service while the services of the dishonest or the corrupt or who are almost dead wood, are to be dispensed with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 460 - K S Hegde - Full Document

K. Kandaswamy vs Union Of India & Anr on 1 September, 1995

In the case of K.Kandaswamy v. Union of India , it was observed that while exercising powers under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules, the appropriate authority has to weigh several circumstances in arriving at the conclusion that the employee requires to be compulsorily retired in public interest. The Government is given power to energise its machinery by weeding out dead wood, inefficient, corrupt and people of doubtful integrity by compulsorily retiring them from service. When the appropriate authority forms bona fide opinion that compulsory retirement of the Government employee is in the public interest, Court would not interfere with such an order. It was further observed that the appropriate Government, therefore, would need to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances appropriate in each case and would form an opinion whether compulsory retirement of a Government employee would be in the public interest. The opinion must be based on the material on record, otherwise the same would amount to arbitrary or colourable exercise of power.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 46 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Jagdish Pandey vs The Chancellor University Of Bihar & Anr on 17 August, 1967

In the case of Jagdish Pandey v. Chancellor, Bihar University (supra) also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court read down the provisions so as to hold them constitutionally valid. The factual background and the rules in question in the said decision though were different from the present case, I do not see any reason why in the present case, such a course should not be adopted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 31 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Rajinder Singh & Kada vs State Of Punjab on 21 April, 1992

18. The question can be looked from a slightly different angle. As noticed above, Rule 3(e) of the said Rules provides for the age of compulsory retirement or which is popularly referred to as the age of superannuation. That age is fixed as 58 years. Respondent herein contends that it has taken a conscious decision to retire all employees upon crossing the age of 55 years in exercise of powers under Rule 5 of the said Rules. By a resolution, the Municipality, therefore, seeks to re-write the age of retirement and amend the rule which guarantees a certain length of tenure to its employees. Surely, a statutory rule cannot be modified by executive instructions is too well laid down a proposition which needs no backing. However, in the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that no Government order, notification, or circular can be a substitute of the statutory rules framed with the authority of law. It otherwise tantamounts to amending the rules by a Government order and ignoring the mandate of Article 309 of the Constitution and also negates the accepted service jurisprudence. The said Rules are are formulated by the Municipality in exercise of powers under Section 271(1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and are sanctioned by the State Government. The Rules therefore have statutory force.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 34 - M M Punchhi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next