Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
M/S Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 1 May, 2007
2. The Allahabad High Court judgment in Vijay
Singh And Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And
Ors. on 28 July, 2004. categorically states that.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others vs Babu Ram Upadhya on 25 November, 1960
Executive instructions cannot amend or supersede
the statutory rules or add something therein, nor
the orders be issued in contravention of the
statutory rules for the reason that an
administrative instruction is not a statutory Rule
nor does it have any force of law; while statutory
rules have full force of law provided the same are
not in conflict with the provisions of the Act. (Vide
State of U. P.and Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya,
AIR 1961 SC 751; and State of Tamil Nadu v. Mis
Hind Stone etc., AIR 1981 SC 711).
State Of Tamil Nadu vs Hind Stone Etc on 5 February, 1981
Executive instructions cannot amend or supersede
the statutory rules or add something therein, nor
the orders be issued in contravention of the
statutory rules for the reason that an
administrative instruction is not a statutory Rule
nor does it have any force of law; while statutory
rules have full force of law provided the same are
not in conflict with the provisions of the Act. (Vide
State of U. P.and Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya,
AIR 1961 SC 751; and State of Tamil Nadu v. Mis
Hind Stone etc., AIR 1981 SC 711).
Rameshwar Prasad vs Managing Director U.P. Rajkiya Nirman ... on 16 September, 1999
"2. But then it is found that the applicant
had been continuing without any deputation
allowance as he is a regular employee and
has been promoted and is now continuing for
more than 8 years by now. This appears to
be covered by a decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Rameshwar Prasad Vs.
Managing Director. UP Rajakiya Nirman
Nigam Limited reported in CDJ 1999 SC
547 wherein also exactly similar situation
exist wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that in such cases the employee has a right of
absorption and the order of rapatriation was
quashed. In compliance with it, I direct the
applicant be absorbed in the South Western
Railway in accordance with the earlier
agreement between the parties. OA is
allowed to this extent. No order as to costs."
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Mahesh Narain And 2 Others on 19 February, 2021
In State Of U.P.& Ors vs Mahesh Narain and
others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held
on 6 March, 2013, that the mistake or delay on
the part of the department should not be permitted
to recoil on the appellants and if the delay in
promotion takes place at the instance of the
Employer, an employee cannot be made to suffer
on account of intervening events.
1