Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.68 seconds)
Jairam Luniwal vs D/O Post on 5 May, 2022 cites

Director, General Rice Research ... vs Khetra Mohan Das on 6 October, 1994

The applicant further stated that the controversy involved in the present case is no more res-integra, which is well settled by several Benches of this Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the applicant is entitled to get the benefits of MACP as he is a similarly situated person. The present Original Application is squarely covered by the judgments / orders passed by the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, as stated above, as the same question has been upheld upto the level of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant further stated that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General, Rice Research Institute, Cuttack and Anr. vs. Khetram Mohan Das, 'promotion' means appointment of a 11 OA No. 114/2019 person of any category or grade or a service or a class of service to a higher category or grade of such service or class.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 123 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Bhanwar Lal Regar on 3 January, 2018

It is also seen that against the said order of this Tribunal, the respondent-Union of India had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench by way of filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11336/2012 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Bhanwar Lal Regar) and connected Writ Petitions, but the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 10th August, 2015 had observed, while dismissing the same, which reads as follows:-
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 65 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs R. Santhakumar Velusamy & Ors on 6 September, 2011

14. We are not in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the said orders/judgments, as discussed above, is applicable to the applicants of the said cases only. But we are of the considered view that since the applicant herein is similarly situated person, he is also entitled to get the same benefits as have been given to the applicants therein. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of R. Santhakumari Velusamy (supra), as relied upon by the respondents, is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 75 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1