Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.53 seconds)Sunil Kumar Verma And 3 Ors vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors on 3 February, 2015
However, they were not able to much dispute that Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Verma (supra) has passed directions only qua to appellants therein. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner was failed to show any part of said judgment that there was a direction that effect of said judgment would be applicable to other retrenched employees also, whether or not they were before the Court.
Prabhu Nath Prasad Son Of Ram Deo And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Through Chief Secretary, ... on 9 January, 2007
95. The appeals filed by the retrenched employees challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in Prabhu Nath Prasad case [2007 SCC OnLine All 1221 : (2007) 2 All LJ 280] deserves to be and are hereby dismissed in view of the foregoing discussions. Thus, all the appeals of Group I, Group III and Group IV are partly allowed setting aside the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for absorbing the writ petitioners.
State Of U.P. & Others vs Sunil Kumar Verma & Others on 29 July, 2010
Endorsing the said view, the Division Bench proceeded to state that : (Sunil Kumar Verma case [State of U.P. v. Sunil Kumar Verma, 2010 SCC OnLine All 2581 : (2010) 5 All LJ 582] , SCC OnLine All paras 94-96)
"94. ... We having found that the right of consideration for absorption under the 1991 Rules having come to an end after the Rescission Rules, 2003, no mandamus can be issued for enforcing the said right. However, it is relevant to note that under the Rescission Rules, 2003 as well as under the 2009 Act certain benefits have been provided to the retrenched employees even after 8-4-2003. The retrenched employees i.e. writ petitioners are fully entitled to take the benefit of the aforesaid Rule 3(ii) of the Rescission Rules, 2003 and Section 3(2) of the 2009 Act.
State Of U.P. Thru Pr.Secy Karmik And ... vs Shambhu Nath Srivastava And 5 Others on 11 November, 2019
19. The Court is also of the view that judgment passed by Division Bench in Shambhu Nath Srivastava (supra) is squarely against the case of petitioners whereby Division Bench has rejected the similar claim of retrenched employees of U.P. Cement Corporation as well as distinguished Sunil Kumar Verma (supra) also. There is no reason to take a different view.
State Of U.P. And 3 Ors vs Shiv Jag Sharma And 9 Ors on 28 September, 2018
20. So far as judgment of Shiv Jag Sharma and others (supra) is concerned, it was in regard to grant of pension to retired employees of U.P. Rajya Cement Nigam Ltd. at Churk and petitioners therein were already absorbed in State services, whereas petitioners herein were admittedly not absorbed, therefore, facts of Shiv Jag Sharma and others (supra) are distinguishable and it are not applicable to present case.
1