Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (1.36 seconds)
Chandra Shekhar Azad vs The State Of Bihar on 13 February, 2020 cites

The State Of Bihar vs The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle ... on 10 May, 2019

31. The fifth question as to whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee & Ors. (supra) is a settler on the point that the cadre of the Assistant Teacher is dying cadre, I am of the view that the State Government having taken a plea before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the cadre of the Assistant Teacher is a dying cadre and the same has been accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has to be taken as a settler on the point that the cadre of the Assistant Teacher is a dying cadre but the question as to whether it applies to the case of the present petitioners, I am of the view that it would not apply to the facts of the present case, therefore, these petitioners would not be affected. These petitioners have been appointed as Assistant Teachers by virtue of the direction of this Court which has Patna High Court CWJC No.15626 of 2019 dt.13-02-2020 39/43 attained finality. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in a case in which the issue of dying cadre was raised by way of a submission only to contest the claim of equal pay for equal work by Niyojit Shikshak.
Supreme Court of India Cites 133 - Cited by 110 - U U Lalit - Full Document

The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar on 11 May, 2010

In the case of Rajeev Ranvijay Kumar (supra) the State Government took a plea that if the appellants withdraw the appeal, the State would be considering their cases keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the each case. In view of that statement of the Patna High Court CWJC No.15626 of 2019 dt.13-02-2020 42/43 State, Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar and others, who were the petitioners/appellants, withdrew the Special Leave Petition with liberty to move the authorities concerned. Thereafter, the State respondents considered their cases and appointed them as Assistant Teacher in the cadre.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 118 - Full Document

Vishwanath Pandey vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 28 November, 2016

While their representations were being considered, another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5090 of 2013 [arising out of the judgment and order dated 19.08.2011 in L.P.A. No. 1164 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 7218 of 2007(Vishwanath Pandey Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.)] came. In the said case father of the petitioner had died on 14.10.2004, the petitioner had submitted his application on 05.02.2005 for appointment on compassionate ground but the same remained pending consideration. The petitioner had to move this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7258 of 2005 for a Mandamus to the concerned authorities which was disposed of with a direction to the State authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Pursuant to the said direction, the recommendation was made by the Committee but the petitioner was not given appointment because of the ban imposed by the State Government. Once again the Committee considered the Patna High Court CWJC No.15626 of 2019 dt.13-02-2020 9/43 case of the petitioner and recommended him for appointment as a Teacher and thereafter, the petitioner was appointed. This was done on 25.09.2006 because the earlier recommendation for appointment of the petitioner was returned by the then Regional Deputy Director of Patna Division, Patna vide office letter no. 307 dated 02.09.2006 on the ground of non-availability of the post. The subsequent recommendation issued on 25.09.2006 ultimately resulted in his appointment and joining on the post of Assistant Teacher in regular pay-scale. The Hon'ble Apex Court recorded in paragraph '9' and '10' of the judgment as under:
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - A K Singh - Full Document

Mukesh & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 3 April, 2017

30. So far as 4th question is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that now after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh & Anr. (supra) appointment on compassionate ground in the dying cadre of Assistant Teacher was permissible only in the cases where the recommendation for appointment was made by the Committee prior to 01.07.2006 but in view of the liberty granted to take a Patna High Court CWJC No.15626 of 2019 dt.13-02-2020 38/43 decision in respect of those who had been recommended after 01.07.2006 if the State Government took a decision vide Memo No. 38 dated 12.01.2018 to appoint these petitioners who were wards of the Government Teachers who had died prior to 01.07.2006 and by virtue of the such decision these petitioners have already been appointed, there is nothing on the record to show that it was result of a wrong understanding of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 130 - L N Rao - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Joginder Singh on 16 November, 1962

18. Now so far as first question as to whether the post of Assistant Teacher is a dying cadre after 2006 is concerned, this Court finds from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (supra) that while contesting the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in which a direction was issued to the State Government to pay equal pay to Niyojit Shikshak and the Niyojit Shikshak were declared at par in the matter of payment of their pay and emoluments with the Government Teachers, besides other points raised on behalf of the State of Bihar, the State heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh reported in 1963 Suppl.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 152 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Ishwar Dutt vs Land Acquisition Collector And Anr on 2 August, 2005

26. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Dutt Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and Anr. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 190 to submit that in the facts of the present case the State respondents would be stopped from giving any different consideration to the petitioners. Paragraph 18, 19, 20, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 are reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 206 - Full Document

Hope Plantations Ltd vs Taluk Land Board Peermade & Anr on 3 November, 1998

In Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board5, this Court observed (SCC p.611.para31) : "31. Law on res judicata and estoppel is well understood in India and there are ample authoritative pronouncements by various courts on these subjects. As noted above, the plea of res judicata, though technical, is based on public policy in order to put an end to litigation. It is, however, different if an issue which had been decided in an earlier litigation again arises for determination between the same parties in a suit based on a fresh cause of action or where there is continuous cause of action. The parties then may not be bound by the determination made earlier if in the meanwhile, law has changed or has been interpreted differently by a higher forum."
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 203 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next