Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (3.56 seconds)

M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 19 October, 2006

The CAT, Chandigarh Bench vide order dated 29.04.2014 while allowing the said O.A. referred the law laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Ajeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, M. Nagraj Vs. UOI [(2006) 8 SCC 212] and other judgments directed the official respondents to refix the inter se seniority of the applicants therein vi-a- vis the private respondents and modify impugned seniority list of Group „C‟ (UDCs) in CPO as on 01.01.2012. Therefore, the case of the applicant is also required to be considered in the light of aforesaid order passed by CAT, Chandigarh Bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 793 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Ajit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 September, 1999

3.5 It is further pointed out that Shri Sahdev Kaushik and Smt. Vandana Sharma, who belong to General Category, had raised a issue about grant of correct seniority before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal and contending that consequential seniority granted to reserved category 2026.04.07 JITENDRA 15:14:59 RAJ MEHTA +05'30' 12 [OA NO. 512-2016] employees in violation of the law declared in Ajit Singh Januja(supra) was impermissible, and that the seniority of general category officers ought to be protected at all higher levels.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 601 - M J Rao - Full Document

Prem Kumar Verma And Others vs State Of Haryana on 7 August, 2012

2. Learned counsel for the applicants relies on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme court in Ajit Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2000 (1) SCT770], M. Nagaraj V. UOI [2007(4) SCT 664] and Suraj Bhan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan[2011 (2) SCT 260] as well as the judgment of the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 07.08.2012 in CWP No. 17280 of 2011(Prem Kumar Verma Vs. State of Haryana).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 32 - A G Masih - Full Document
1   2 Next