Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Basantha Kumar Pal vs Chief Electrical Engineer And Ors. on 8 June, 1956 cites

Shyam Lal vs 1. The State Of Uttar Pradesh2. The Union ... on 30 March, 1954

10. The learned Judge however pointed out that the question did not arise in that particular case, because the Railway authorities did not dispense with the services of the plaintiff; it was of his own seeking. It is evident that the learned Judge, in stating what was a possible point of view or what might be argued, was deciding nothing. Mr. Pal argues that even an. obiter of the Supreme Court is binding upon me. That would be so, if the Supreme Court had enunciated or declared some principle of law. Here, however, nothing was decided as to the interpretation of Fundamental Rule 56. On the other hand. it was held that a decision was unnecessary in view of the conduct of the plaintiff. There is therefore nothing to follow. Mr. Bose, appearing for the respondents, has also pointed out that Shyam Lal case 1954 S.C.A. 476 is a later case, where the Supreme Court dealt at length with the question whether compulsory retirement was "removal" within the meaning of Article 311, holding that it did not. It will also be observed that in this case the petitioner did have an opportunity of showing cause and actually did show cause against his retirement order and the order was made after considering his representation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 225 - Full Document

Jai Ram vs Union Of India on 22 January, 1954

9. Mr. Pal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, placed strong reliance upon the Supreme Court decision Jai Ram v. Union of India 1954 S.C.A. 1251. In that case, the plaintiff was employed as a cleric in the Central Research Institute at Kasauli. He insisted upon retiring from service on reaching the age of 55 and upon that footing obtained leave, preparatory to retirement. Thereafter, he changed his mind and insisted that under Fundamental Rule 56(b)(i), he was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60. Speaking about the rule, Mukherjee, J., said as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 54 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1