Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.24 seconds)
Dr.Abhay Kumar Srivastava vs Union Of India on 10 August, 2015 cites

Dr. L.P. Agarwal vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 July, 1992

In view of our discussion made hereinabove and for the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that this writ petition is covered by the decisions of this Court in D.S. Reddi and L.P. Agarwal L.P. Agarwal (Dr.) v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 526 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 731 : (1992) 21 ATC 249 and the impugned proviso to Section 11(1-A) of the AIIMS Act is, therefore, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, we hold that the proviso is ultra vires and unconstitutional and accordingly it is struck down. The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is allowed. In view of our order passed in the writ petition, the writ petitioner shall serve the nation for some more period i.e. up to 2-7-2008. We direct the AIMS Authorities to restore the writ petitioner in his office as Director of AIIMS till his period comes to an end on 2-7-2008. The writ petitioner is also entitled to his pay and other emoluments as he was getting before premature termination of his office from the date of the order of termination. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, there will be no order as to costs. The ratio decendi of the judgment was that the naked discrimination for removal of one man and depriving him of statutory protection without there being any rationality of creating a classification between the one in office and the one to be appointed in future could not be sustained. In the present case, it is not so that the respondents incorporated any provision of law subsequent to appointment of the applicant to bring an end to his services. The Articles of Association of NALCO in terms of which the impugned order has been passed was very much in existence before the applicant was appointed as its CMD. It is stare decisis that a judicial precedents cannot be followed as statute and has to be relied upon with reference to the facts of the case wherein the precedent is laid down. In Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. M/s Alnoori Tobacco Products & another ( 2004 (6) SCALE 232), Honble Supreme Court ruled thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 71 - K Singh - Full Document

Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961

To the same effect is the decision of this Court in State of U.P Vs. Sughar Singh (1974) 1 SCC 218= 1974(2) SCR 535=AIR 1974 SC 423, which related to reversion and in which reliance was placed on two earlier decisions in Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe Vs. State of Mysore AIR SC 8=1962 (1) SLR 886 and State of Bombay vs.F.A.Abraham AIR1962 SC 794= 1962 Supp. (2) SCR 92. It was, however, laid down that if the order visits the employee with penal consequences, the order would be punitive. It was for this reason that the order of reversion in that case was held to be bad.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 58 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next