Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.61 seconds)
D. R. Dhingra S/O Jiwan Das vs Union Of India Through on 4 August, 2009 cites

State Of Punjab And Ors vs S.C. Chadha on 9 February, 2004

18. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, OA is partly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to be re-examined in the context of the observations made above and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in S. Janardhan Rao (supra) and a final decision shall be taken in the wake of retirement on superannuation of applicant approaching on 31.5.2008, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a reasoned order. No costs. It is the case of the applicant that after the judgment recorded in OA No.2207/2007 by this Tribunal, he continuously and persistently pursued the case with the 1st respondent for accepting and incorporating 6.5.1952 as his date of birth in his service record. The 1st respondent, however, kept on assuring the applicant that it was doing the needful to incorporate his correct date of birth in the records, and yet it was not done, even though the Tribunal had directed to pass final order within three weeks. It is further the case of the applicant that he came to understand only very lately that the 1st respondent was playing hide and seek with the judgment/order of this Tribunal in OA No.2207/2007, and was not deliberately passing any order within the stipulated time, and kept on buying time by giving false assurances to the applicant thereby dissuading him from initiating any further legal proceedings immediately after expiry of three weeks. It is then his case that the 1st respondent was planning to surreptitiously retire him on 31.5.2008 so as to frustrate his case, and that on coming to know of the said plan of the respondent, the applicant immediately filed OA No.1100/2008 in this Tribunal, which was heard on 28.5.2008, on which date the Tribunal while taking stock of the totality of the facts, granted a stay of seven days from the date of order that may be passed by the Central Government in pursuance of the directions contained in its earlier order dated 13.3.2008 in OA No.2207/2007. We need not reproduce the order dated 28.5.2008 in its entirety.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 92 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Hindustan Sugar Mills vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 31 August, 1979

In order to do justice to the applicant, the State Government also relied upon observations of the Honble Supreme Court in M/s Hindustan Sugar Mills v State of Rajasthan [AIR 1981 SC 1681] that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, it is the duty of the State to do what is fair and just to the citizen and the State should not seek to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizen by adopting legalistic attitude but should do what fairness and justice demand. It also observed that the applicant had submitted irrefutable evidence of his actual date of birth being 6.5.1952 instead of 6.5.1948. In the circumstances as mentioned above, a question arises as to whether the rigor of rule 16-A of the Rules of 1958 can be relaxed, for which power is vested with the Government by virtue of rule 3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service  Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1960), which reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 23 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Janardhana Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. on 9 February, 1966

13. Narration of facts as given above would demonstrate that the correct procedure as envisaged under rule 16-A of the Rules of 1958 in accepting the date of birth was adopted, and further that while doing so, no bona fide clerical mistake had been committed in accepting the date of birth. Shri Behera, learned counsel representing the applicant, would still urge that the decision of the Government now impugned is in defiance of the order passed by a single Bench of this Tribunal in the first OA No.2207/2007 of the applicant, and that the respondents despite clear findings recorded in the said order, have chosen to take their own decision, as if they were sitting in appeal over the said order. The argument appears to be impressive on the first blush, but when examined in all its fine and minute details, would not have any substance. We may also mention that the only other contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order now passed by the respondents is in sharp contrast to the judicial precedent of the Honble Supreme Court in S. Janardhana Rao v Government of A.P. & Another [1999 SCC (L&S) 653]. We do not find any merit in this contention as well. We may give our reasons.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Kuldeep Singh on 8 December, 2003

The discretion vested under the rules has to be exercised judiciously, as held by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh, 2004 (2) SCC 590. Resultantly, the rules and the embargo therein shall not apply in the present case. As there was no valid acceptance and the date of birth declared was not final, rejection of the request of the applicant for alteration of date of birth cannot be sustained in law. 18. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, OA is partly allowed. Impugned order is set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 164 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Smt. Surjit Kaur vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 June, 1997

It would be up to the Government to consider the issue and while doing so, it may consider the judicial precedents including Surjit Kaur Sandhu (supra). We may, however, mention that the learned single Member while rejecting the plea of the counsel for the applicant based upon Rule 16-A, on facts, however, insofar as the Government declining to give benefit of rule 3 of the All India Services (Conditions of Service  Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, is concerned, observed that present is not open and shut case. Right at the inception from school leaving certificate issued on 31.3.1959 and the matriculation certificate in 1964 which was made basis by the applicant in applying not only for a senior school examination but graduation as well without any demur accepted this date of birth and relied on it while filling up the application form for CSE. Thereafter when the applicant was posted in Punjab on deputation the entire gamut upto issue of a decree was managed. An application though purportedly sent to the Punjab University in 1976 without any proof on record for correction of date of birth was abandoned and resumed only by a request made to the Vice Chancellor Punjab University only on 7.1.1999. Syndicate approved the change of date of birth. However in the wake of rejection by the University a Suit filed before the civil judge in collusion with Punjab University and Government girls high school has gone to the extent of proceeding Punjab University ex-parte. If the date of birth of an incumbent of Indian administration service is sought to be corrected in the matriculation certificate it was the duty of the applicant as the minimum requirement to apprise either the State of UP or Union of India of it and also impleadment of the authorities as necessary parties. In that event, the truthfulness of the claim of applicant would have not required any proof and a decree passed thereupon should have been binding on the State. The observations made above would demonstrate that the plea of the applicant in the said case that her date of birth was incorrectly recorded was repelled. In fact, a firm finding of fact came to be recorded that the applicant had managed the affairs.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - S B Sinha - Full Document

S.N.Dhingra & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 January, 2001

However, it is to be indicated that pursuant to the order dated 13/3/2008 passed by the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.2207/2007 D.R. Dhingra vs. UOI and Others) the Central Government had already passed the order on 27/5/2008 i.e. before the Honble Tribunals direction on 28/5/2008 in OA No.1100/2008 filed by Shri Dhingra Vs. UOI and Others which was duly sent by Speed Post to the Government of Haryana on 27/5/2008 and a copy of the order was delivered to the Resident Commissioner, government of Haryanas Office on 28/5/2008 and information about the same was also faxed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana on 28/5/2008 in the forenoon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 28 - B N Agarwal - Full Document

Kamaljit Kaur vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 20 July, 2009

He has further contended that as per law laid down by the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kanwaljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 2000 (2) S.C.T. 114 wherein it has been held that the qualifications etc. prescribed under the statutory rules shall prevail over those specified in the advertisement and the Government and its functionaries are not entitled to make recruitment de hors the qualifications etc. prescribed under the statutory Service Rules as such while calculating his age for eligibility for appointment reliance has to be made on the provisions of the rules and not on the advertisement which contains a specified date which is against the statutory rules. The contentions made by Sh. Dhingra, IAS in his representation have force. No vacancies of HCS (Executive Branch) had ever been advertised by the State Government in the year 1972. The rules regulating the minimum and maximum age limit for appointment to HCS (Executive Branch) are different than that of allied services. His earlier representations had been rejected on the wrong analogy that had his date of birth been 6.5.1952 he would not have been eligible for appointment as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. It has further been observed that as per the Middle Standard School Examination certificate issued by Education Department, Haryana his date of birth in the certificate has been recorded as 6.5.1952. However, his date of birth in the Matriculation Examination conducted by Punjab University was recorded as 6.5.1948 which has since been corrected by the Punjab University also. Thus his actual date of birth as per documents submitted by him is 6.5.1952. No benefit has accrued to Sh. Dhingra, IAS in the matter of securing employment in the Government on the basis of his wrong date of birth. The birth certificates of his other brothers and sisters issued by the Registrar of Births & Deaths also verifies that the actual date of birth of Sh. D.R. Dhingra, IAS is 6.5.1952.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - J S Khehar - Full Document
1