Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)
Ajit Kumar Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 31 October, 2023 cites

State Of Gujarat vs Umedbhai M. Patel on 27 February, 2001

In recent judgment in Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India // 49 // reported in 2023 SCC Online (SC) 234 the Hon'ble Supreme Court refering to the judgment in Umedbhai M Patel's case (supra) was pleased to set aside the order of compulsory retirement, therefore, there is no doubt that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umedbhai M Patel's case is valid law and still holds the field.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 276 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Epari Vasudeva Rao, Bhubaneswar vs State Of Odisha And Another on 15 April, 2014

same adverse remarks he was given compulsory retirement while reviewing his service at the age of 58 years, without there being any subsequent or additional adverse remarks/service records, apart from promotions being given to petitioner therein in between. Therefore, this Court quashed the order of compulsory retirement and directed reinstatement of the said employee in service with back wages. In the instant case the three instances of remote past for which the petitioner was cautioned, censured and warned were of very minor nature and the same were considered while reviewing the service of the petitioner at the age of 50 years and the Review Committee as well as the Full Court did not give him compulsory retirement at that stage and allowed him to continue in service, evidently considering the said incidents as not justifying giving of compulsory, retirement. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of District Judge and even those incidents did not furnish ground for withholding promotion. As to conduct and performance, except for the years 2001, 2006 and the first half of 2008 when his overall rating was 'average', there was no allegation about his integrity. On the other hand, the rating of the petitioner as 'average' for the years 2001, 2006 and the first half of 2008 was also available to // 35 // the Review Committee as well as to the Full Court of the High Court during the review of his service at the age of 50 years in November, 2008. These ratings and the three adverse remarks described earlier could not persuade the High Court to give compulsory retirement to the petitioner then. His ACR for other years was 'good' and 'very good'. Therefore, without there being any additional or further adverse remark/service record and having regard to the decision of this Court in the case of Epari Vasudev Rao (Supra) we are of the opinion that the Court's decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily is arbitrary and unreasonable and, therefore, the impugned order of compulsory retirement under Annexure-9 cannot be sustained. Accordingly we quash the said order. The petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years in May, 2017, and, therefore, there is no scope to direct his reinstatement in service. However, we direct that he must be deemed to have continued in service from the date of his compulsory retirement till the date of his superannuation at the age of 60 years and he shall be given his salary at the time scale of pay for the post he was holding at the time of compulsory retirement for the said period and retiral benefits accordingly.
Orissa High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - I Mahanty - Full Document

Swami Saran Saksena vs State Of U.P on 11 October, 1979

48. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swami Saran Saksena v. State of U.P., (1980) 1 SCC 12. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the order of compulsory retirement which was found to be in sharp contradiction with his recent service performance and record. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 30 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Brij Mohan Singh Chopra vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1987

"9.....The subsequent ACRs of the respondent for the years 1997-1998 and 2000-2001 are sufficiently positive and depicts the respondent as an efficient judicial officer with a good reputation for honesty and impartiality. The respondent was promoted to the post of District and Sessions Judge on 5.9.1998. By Notification dated 17.2.2000 he was promoted to the selection grade of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service with effect from 1.1.1997. Therefore, not only the adverse remark dated 15.12.1995 was not acted upon but subsequent thereto promotion to the highest level in the district judiciary as well as selection grade in the said cadre was granted to the respondent. Promotion to the highest post of District Judge and placement in the selection grade is on an assessment of positive merit and ability. The said promotion (s), therefore, would have the effect of wiping out the adverse remark dated 15.12.1995. Such a view has in fact been expressed in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab (para 10). In the light of the above facts, we do not see how the High Court, on the administrative side, can be found to // 32 // be justified in refusing to continue with the service of the respondent beyond the age of 58 years. The order dated 20.2.2001 passed by the High Court setting aside the said decision, therefore, will have to be affirmed and the present appeal dismissed. We order accordingly."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 152 - K N Singh - Full Document

Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs Union Of India on 3 March, 2023

In recent judgment in Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India // 49 // reported in 2023 SCC Online (SC) 234 the Hon'ble Supreme Court refering to the judgment in Umedbhai M Patel's case (supra) was pleased to set aside the order of compulsory retirement, therefore, there is no doubt that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umedbhai M Patel's case is valid law and still holds the field.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - H Kohli - Full Document
1   2 Next