Mrs. Mala Tandon Thukral vs Director Of Education & Others on 28 January, 2010
20. The appellant has relied on the case of Mrs. Mala Tandon (supra). The
findings in this case are distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)M/S Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. vs State Of U.P.& Others on 17 September, 2014
In U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (supra), this Court made the
distinction between permission, prior approval and approval. Para 6
of the judgment is quoted hreinabove:
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Escorts Ltd. & Ors on 19 December, 1985
6. This Court in Life Insurance Corpn. Of India v. Escorts
Ltd. (1986) 1 SCC 264, considering the distinction between
"special permission" and "general permission", previous
approval" or "prior approval" in para 63 held that:
North Zone Cultural Center And Anr. vs Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar on 17 April, 2003
16. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that acceptance
was never communicated to the appellant before he submitted his withdrawal of
the resignation letter and, therefore, the acceptance of the resignation letter
cannot be termed to have become effective from the date it was accepted but from
the date the acceptance was communicated to the appellant. The appellant since
had withdrawn his resignation letter before communication of such acceptance,
the termination of its services pursuant to the said resignation letter is invalid.
The question whether the resignation letter becomes effective from the date of its
acceptance or from the date when such acceptance is communicated to the
resigning employee had come up before the Supreme Court in the case of North
Zone Cultural Centre and Another vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar reported at
(2003) 5 SCC 455. The Apex Court has held that the resignation of an employee
becomes effective on acceptance even if the acceptance is not communicated to
him. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:-
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. vs Naresh Kumar Kataria on 17 April, 2013
21. The appellant has also relied on the findings of this Court in the case of
Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra). The findings are given on the fact of that case
which are different from the facts in this case. That case relates to the termination
of the services and does not relate to the termination of services on the resignation
letter of an employee.
Urmil Sharma And Others vs Punjab School Education Board And ... on 22 April, 2014
22. The appellant has also relied on the findings of this Court in the case of
Urmil (supra). The findings in that case were also given on the facts of that case
which are distinguishable. In that case, the resignation letter was accepted by the
Manager and not by the Managing Committee and therefore the Court reached to
the conclusion that there was the violation of the provision of Rule 114 A of
Delhi Education Rules, 1973. In the present case, it was the Managing
Committee who had accepted the resignation letter; hence, in this case there is
due compliance of Rule 114A of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
1