Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.38 seconds)

Raghunath Rai Bareja And Another vs Punjab National Bank And Others on 6 December, 2006

“A person appointed under these rules shall be entitled to seniority only from the date of order of appointment after selection in accordance with these rules and shall, in all cases, be placed below the persons appointed in accordance with the relevant service rules or as the case may be, the regular prescribed procedure, prior in the appointment of such person under these rules.” Admittedly, the respondents were appointed after a selection under the Regularization Rules in the year 2004. Hence, in our view, they can get seniority only from the year 2004 and not from 1988. The rule is clear and hence we cannot debar from the clear meaning of the rule. It has been held in Raghunath Rai Bareja & Another vs. Punjab National Bank & Others (2007) 2 SCC 230 that when there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which has to prevail in accordance with the latin maxim ‘dura lex sed lex’ which means ‘the law is hard but it is the law’.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 277 - M Katju - Full Document

B. Premanand & Ors vs Mohan Koikal & Ors on 16 March, 2011

Equity can only supplement the law, but it cannot supplant or override it. This view was followed in Civil Appeal No. 2684 of 2007 titled B. Premanand & Others vs. Mohan Koikal & Others decided on 16th March, 2011. In the present case, Rules 7 is very clear and hence the respondents are not entitled to the benefit of their service from 1988 to 2004 for the purpose of their seniority.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 165 - Full Document
1