Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)
Dr. Shyam Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush ... on 17 February, 2023 cites

Prem Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Secretary on 2 September, 2019

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, all the orders impugned in the writ petitions are passed either on the ground that they are covered by the Ordinance/Act of 2021 or they were not party in case of Prem Singh (supra) or without considering the judgment of Prem Singh (supra) and hence, the same are squarely covered by the finding given above. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot stand and are set aside. However, petitioners shall be entitled to past pensionary benefits for last three years only.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 898 - A Mishra - Full Document

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularised in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularised under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularised of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularised. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularisation as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Jang Pal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 May, 2022

Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment and order dated 8.11.2021 passed by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Das Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No.25955 of 2017); as well as judgment of this Court in case of Jang Pal vs. State of U.P. and others (Specia Appeal No.240 of 2021) decided on 16.5.2022; interim order dated 26.4.2022 in case of State of U.P. and others vs. Gulam Sarver (Special Appeal No.165 of 2022); State of U.P. and others vs. Raj Bahadur Pastor, 2022(3) ADJ 5 (DB); and judgment and order dated 7.5.2022 passed in case of Kishun Dev Ram vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No.38221 of 2011).
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kishun Dev Ram vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 May, 2022

Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment and order dated 8.11.2021 passed by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Das Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No.25955 of 2017); as well as judgment of this Court in case of Jang Pal vs. State of U.P. and others (Specia Appeal No.240 of 2021) decided on 16.5.2022; interim order dated 26.4.2022 in case of State of U.P. and others vs. Gulam Sarver (Special Appeal No.165 of 2022); State of U.P. and others vs. Raj Bahadur Pastor, 2022(3) ADJ 5 (DB); and judgment and order dated 7.5.2022 passed in case of Kishun Dev Ram vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No.38221 of 2011).
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - S S Shamshery - Full Document

Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs M/S Adidas Ag & Ors. 13/05/2014 09/2014 R ... on 13 May, 2014

In Narain Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. [CA No. ______2019 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5775 of 2018] the appellants were allowed to cross efficiency bar, after ''8' years of continuous service, even during the period of work-charged services. Narain Dutt Sharma, the appellant, was appointed as a work-charged employee as Gej Mapak with effect from 15-9-1978. Payment used to be made monthly but the appointment was made in the pay scale of Rs 200-320. Initially, he was appointed in the year 1978 on a fixed monthly salary of Rs 205 per month. They were allowed to cross efficiency bar also as the benefit of pay scale was granted to them during the period they served as work-charged employees they served for three to four decades and later on services have been regularised time to time by different orders. However, the services of some of the appellants in few petitions/appeals have not been regularised even though they had served for several decades and ultimately reached the age of superannuation.
Competition Commission of India Cites 6 - Cited by 249 - Full Document

Indian Aluminium Co. Etc. Etc vs State Of Kerala & Crs on 2 February, 1996

Thus, as per section 2 of the Act of 2021, if a person was not appointed on a temporary or permanent post as per service Rules, his services would not be qualifying service for the purposes of pension. Law with regard to the manner in which the Legislature can nullify or modify the impact of a judgment is settled since long. Suffice is to refer to the case of Indian Aluminium Co. and others vs. State of Kerala and others (1996) 7 SCC 637. In the said case, after considering the entire law on subject, the Supreme Court in Para 56 of the judgment enumerates the principles, which read:
Supreme Court of India Cites 90 - Cited by 86 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 September, 1994

14. It is settled since long that daily wager employees are entitled to pensionary benefits counting their services from the date of their initial appointment and not from the date of their regularization. Suffice would be to refer to the judgment in cases of Hari Shankar Asopa vs. State of U.P. and another, 1989(1) UPLBEC 501; Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs. Union of India and others, 1996 (7) SCC 113; and Prem Singh (supra). In fact earlier they were covered by Rule 2 of U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and other Civil Services Regulations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 98 - Full Document
1   2 Next