Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.34 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mrigank Johri vs U.O.I. on 10 July, 2017
27. The apex court clearly laid down the ratio that State is empowered to
make the conditions of absorption and deputationist has no right to claim
absorption. It is on the Department to ask to forgo their seniority while
joining absorbee Department and if employee expressly consented for the
absorption in terms of conditions of the absorption then employee is bound
by it and can never challenge the terms of absorption once accepted and any
62
claim would be time barred on challenge seniority list without challenging
the terms and conditions of absorption. Unless the terms of absorption is set
aside the seniority list prepared would be always in conformity of the same.
The case of Mrigank Johri's case (supra) applies to the present case.
Indu Shekhar Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 28 April, 2006
34. We are in agreement with the submission of the respondents that
this issue has been squarely dealt with in Indu Shekhar Singh's case
(supra) where almost identical issues have been dealt with by holding that
the State was within its right to impose conditions where the employees
had the option to exercise their right of election. The entitlement was not
under any rules but under what was called the residuary power."
R.N. Gosain A vs Yashpal Dhir on 23 October, 1992
26. They, therefore, exercised their right of option. Once they
obtained entry on the basis of election, they cannot be allowed to turn
round and contend that the conditions are illegal. (See R.N. Gosain v.
Yashpal Dhir [(1992) 4 SCC 683], Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara
[(1994) 2 SCC 642] and Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar [(2003) 2
SCC 721 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 200]. Furthermore, there is no
fundamental right in regard to the counting of the services rendered
in an autonomous body. The past services can be taken into
consideration only when the Rules permit the same or where a
special situation exists, which would entitle the employee to obtain
such benefit of past service.
Ramankutty Guptan vs Avara on 5 February, 1994
26. They, therefore, exercised their right of option. Once they
obtained entry on the basis of election, they cannot be allowed to turn
round and contend that the conditions are illegal. (See R.N. Gosain v.
Yashpal Dhir [(1992) 4 SCC 683], Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara
[(1994) 2 SCC 642] and Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar [(2003) 2
SCC 721 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 200]. Furthermore, there is no
fundamental right in regard to the counting of the services rendered
in an autonomous body. The past services can be taken into
consideration only when the Rules permit the same or where a
special situation exists, which would entitle the employee to obtain
such benefit of past service.
Bank Of India & Ors vs O.P. Swarnakar Etc on 17 December, 2002
26. They, therefore, exercised their right of option. Once they
obtained entry on the basis of election, they cannot be allowed to turn
round and contend that the conditions are illegal. (See R.N. Gosain v.
Yashpal Dhir [(1992) 4 SCC 683], Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara
[(1994) 2 SCC 642] and Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar [(2003) 2
SCC 721 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 200]. Furthermore, there is no
fundamental right in regard to the counting of the services rendered
in an autonomous body. The past services can be taken into
consideration only when the Rules permit the same or where a
special situation exists, which would entitle the employee to obtain
such benefit of past service.
Ex-Employees Welfare Society vs Heavy Engineering Corporation And Ors. on 31 March, 2003
55. It was thus, open to the respondents herein not to agree to in
spite of the said conditions as they had already been working with a
statutory authority; they, however, expressly consented to do so.
They must have exercised their option, having regard to benefits to
which they were entitled to in the new post. Once such option is
exercised, the consequences attached thereto would ensue. (See HEC
Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society v. Heavy Engg. Corpn.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary ... on 14 December, 1999
31. It is no doubt true that the OM dated 29.5.1986 as modified by OM
dated 27.3.2001 did provide for the benefit of the previous service
rendered in the cadre. This is in effect also the ratio of the judgment in SI
Rooplal case (supra). This would also be inconformity with the normal
service jurisprudential view. However, it would be a different position if
the absorbing department clearly stipulates a condition of giving
willingness to sacrifice the seniority while preserving all other benefits for
the absorbee (which are accepted) failing which the option was available to
the absorbee to get himself repatriated to the parent department. The terms
and conditions are categorical in their wording that the absorbees would be
"deemed to be new recruits" and the previous service would be counted for
all purposes "except his/her seniority in the cadre". The appellant accepted
this with open eyes and never even challenged the same. Their
representations to give them the benefit of their past seniority was also
turned down and thereafter also they did not agitate the matter in any
judicial forum. The controversy was thus not alive and it was not open for
them to challenge the same after a long lapse of period of time. In fact on
the day of filing of the OM, any prayer to set aside the terms and
conditions of absorption would have been clearly barred by time
under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.