Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Akhil Jharkhand Prathmik Shikshak ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 November, 2018 cites

Rajinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 February, 2015

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed his arguments by submitting that the executive order/letter dated 02.02.2013 appears to have overriding effect for the Bihar State Employees (House Rent Allowance) Rules, 1980 which has been promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Rule-4(b)(ii) interalia provides for grant of House Rent Allowance to the Government servants whose place of duties is in the proximity of a qualified city. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that interpretation 5 given in letter dated 02.02.2013 is not legally tenable since the Central Government is paying House Rent Allowance at the same rate which is applicable for employee working in the classified city and the employees who are working within 8 KM from the municipal area. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents seems to have misconstrued the Clause-15(d) of resolution dated 28.02.2009 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application and Clause-15(d) of resolution clearly speaks that House Rent Allowance would be applicable to the State Government Employees. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondent by issuing letter dated 02.02.2013 smacks of illegality and malafide exercise of power without affording any opportunity of show-cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner to strengthen his argument has referred to the decision (2001) 5 SCC 482 (Dr. Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab And Others) at paragraph-7, (2003) 8 SCC 204 (Punit Rai Vs. Dinesh Chaudhary) at paragraph-45, (2003) 4 SCC 289 (Federation of Railway Officers Association And Others Vs. Union of India) at paragraph-12.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 184 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Punit Rai vs Dinesh Chaudhary on 19 August, 2003

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed his arguments by submitting that the executive order/letter dated 02.02.2013 appears to have overriding effect for the Bihar State Employees (House Rent Allowance) Rules, 1980 which has been promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Rule-4(b)(ii) interalia provides for grant of House Rent Allowance to the Government servants whose place of duties is in the proximity of a qualified city. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that interpretation 5 given in letter dated 02.02.2013 is not legally tenable since the Central Government is paying House Rent Allowance at the same rate which is applicable for employee working in the classified city and the employees who are working within 8 KM from the municipal area. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents seems to have misconstrued the Clause-15(d) of resolution dated 28.02.2009 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application and Clause-15(d) of resolution clearly speaks that House Rent Allowance would be applicable to the State Government Employees. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondent by issuing letter dated 02.02.2013 smacks of illegality and malafide exercise of power without affording any opportunity of show-cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner to strengthen his argument has referred to the decision (2001) 5 SCC 482 (Dr. Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab And Others) at paragraph-7, (2003) 8 SCC 204 (Punit Rai Vs. Dinesh Chaudhary) at paragraph-45, (2003) 4 SCC 289 (Federation of Railway Officers Association And Others Vs. Union of India) at paragraph-12.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 110 - B Kumar - Full Document

Federation Of Railway Officers ... vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2003

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed his arguments by submitting that the executive order/letter dated 02.02.2013 appears to have overriding effect for the Bihar State Employees (House Rent Allowance) Rules, 1980 which has been promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Rule-4(b)(ii) interalia provides for grant of House Rent Allowance to the Government servants whose place of duties is in the proximity of a qualified city. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that interpretation 5 given in letter dated 02.02.2013 is not legally tenable since the Central Government is paying House Rent Allowance at the same rate which is applicable for employee working in the classified city and the employees who are working within 8 KM from the municipal area. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents seems to have misconstrued the Clause-15(d) of resolution dated 28.02.2009 vide Annexure-6 to the writ application and Clause-15(d) of resolution clearly speaks that House Rent Allowance would be applicable to the State Government Employees. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondent by issuing letter dated 02.02.2013 smacks of illegality and malafide exercise of power without affording any opportunity of show-cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner to strengthen his argument has referred to the decision (2001) 5 SCC 482 (Dr. Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab And Others) at paragraph-7, (2003) 8 SCC 204 (Punit Rai Vs. Dinesh Chaudhary) at paragraph-45, (2003) 4 SCC 289 (Federation of Railway Officers Association And Others Vs. Union of India) at paragraph-12.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 242 - Full Document
1