Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
All India Institute Of Medical Science ... vs Dr. Arjun Singh Sandhu on 15 May, 2025 cites

V.S. Mallimath vs Union Of India & Anr on 21 March, 2001

In absence of any clear definition of the term 're- employment', a purposive interpretation is required to be done in this regard, in light of the factual matrix and the relevant rules & regulations, as was done by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judicial pronouncement in the case of V.S. Mallimath v. Union of India, (2001) 4 SCC 31. In the said judicial pronouncement the Hon'ble Apex Court, while determining whether appointment of a member of the Human Rights Commission after retirement would mean "Re-employment", came to the following conclusion:
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Uma Kant Sadhav And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 May, 2023

The Hon'ble Apex Court arrived at conclusion of considering employment of the member of the Human Rights Commission after retirement as re-employment, in view of the rules and conditions containing provision of Re-employment and pay fixation thereof. (Downloaded on 22/05/2025 at 03:20:27 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15512-DB] (21 of 26) [CW-2573/2025] 10.3. This Court is also conscious of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Uma Kant Sadhav And Anr. v. Union of India and Ors (W.P. (C) 8971/2018, decided on 09.05.2023), which was a case, wherein retired government officials were appointed on the post of Chairman and Members of the National Monument Authority in pursuance of an advertisement and appointment orders, and the services of the said employees therein were governed by National Monuments Authority (Conditions of Service of Chairman and Members of the Authority and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 read with Section 20H of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendments and Validation) Act, 2010 which did not have any provision with respect to re-employment of the retired government officers. Thus, despite appointment of retired government pensioners to the said posts, they were not considered as re-employed as the rules governing their employment had no provision with respect to the "Re- employment".
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Mahendra Raj Marg Karamchari Union And ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 24 March, 1995

1.1. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2573/2025 (AIIMS, Jodhpur & Anr. Vs. Dr. Mahendra Kumar Garg) and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4524/2025 (Dr. Mahendra Kumar Garg Vs. Union of India & Anr.), for the purpose of the present analogous adjudication. 1.1.1. The prayer clauses read as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1