Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.54 seconds)
Harbans Lal Amar Chand vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 8 March, 1965 cites

N. Devasahayam vs State Of Madras, By Secretary, Home ... on 12 April, 1957

In the Madras case, the question was whether loss of seniority which resulted from readjustment and refixing of seniority inter se between certain officers in the service would amount to a reduction in rank so as to attract the application of Article 311(2). This question is not involved in the present case. Moreover, the Supreme Court itself has stated in their judgment that they were not called upon to express a definite opinion on the question now being urged by the learned counsel for the State.
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957

12. This contention is also without any substance. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra's case, AIR 1958 SC 36, that where the reduction in rank was one by way of punishment, then the provisions of Article 311(2) were attracted. There it was not said that the action taken should be by way of punishment for reasons personal to the petitioner, like misconduct, etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 809 - Full Document

Benukar Mahata vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 27 March, 1963

11. The next argument of the learned counsel was that this action by the Department was not being taken by way of punishment for reasons personal to the petitioners but on account of administrative adjustments consequential on the revision of the seniority list. This was in effect scrapping the provisional promotion order from the date from which it took effect, according to the provisions made in the order itself. Reliance for this submission was placed on two authorities, namely, Benukar Mahata v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 Cal 563, and State of Punjab v. Jagdip Singh, AIR 1964 SC 521.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - G K Mitter - Full Document
1